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
