Excerpts from Kohei KaiGai's message of jue sep 27 01:01:18 -0300 2012: > * I have a question. What is the meaning of INT64_IS_BUSTED? > It seems to me a marker to indicate a platform without 64bit support. > However, the commit 901be0fad4034c9cf8a3588fd6cf2ece82e4b8ce > says as follows: > | Remove all the special-case code for INT64_IS_BUSTED, per decision that > | we're not going to support that anymore.
Yeah, I think we should just get rid of those bits. I don't remember seeing *any* complaint when INT64_IS_BUSTED was removed, which means nobody was using that code anyway. Now there is one more problem in this area which is that the patch defined a new type pg_int64 for frontend code (postgres_ext.h). This seems a bad idea to me. We already have int64 defined in c.h. Should we expose int64 to postgres_ext.h somehow? Should we use standard- mandated int64_t instead? One way would be to have a new configure check for int64_t, and if that type doesn't exist, then just don't provide the 64 bit functionality to frontend. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
