Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> writes: > It wouldn't be too hard to just do:
> struct { > int64 high_bits; > uint64 low_bits; > } pg_int128; > and some macros for the + - etc. operators. It might be less work than > trying to deal with the portability issues of a native C datatype for this. -1. That's not that easy, especially for division, or if you want to worry about overflow. The point of this patch IMO is to get some low hanging fruit; coding our own int128 arithmetic doesn't sound like "low hanging" to me. Also, we've already got the configure infrastructure for detecting whether a platform has working int64. It really shouldn't be much work to transpose that to int128 (especially if we don't care about printf support, which I think we don't). regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers