On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Yeah ... however, if that's there, then there's something wrong with > Ashutosh's explanation, because that means we *are* building with > _USE_32BIT_TIME_T in 32-bit builds. It's just getting there in a > roundabout way. (Or, alternatively, this code is somehow not doing > anything at all.)
I don't follow. >> The trouble with that is that _USE_32BIT_TIME_T also affects how >> PostgreSQL code compiles. > > Really? We try to avoid touching "time_t" at all in most of the code. > I bet that we could drop the above-cited code, and compile only plperl > with _USE_32BIT_TIME_T, taken (if present) from the Perl flags, and > it'd be fine. At least, that's my first instinct for what to try. Oh. Well, if that's an OK thing to do, then sure, wfm. I guess we've got pg_time_t plastered all over the backend but that's not actually time_t under the hood, so it's fine. I do see time_t being used in frontend code, but that won't matter for this. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
