Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On Tuesday 04 August 2009 17:56:41 Tom Lane wrote:
>> The other thing that I would say is a non-negotiable minimum requirement
>> is that the patch include the necessary configure pushups so it does not
>> break machines without uintptr_t.
> There is AC_TYPE_UINTPTR_T,
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 17:56:41 Tom Lane wrote:
> The other thing that I would say is a non-negotiable minimum requirement
> is that the patch include the necessary configure pushups so it does not
> break machines without uintptr_t.
There is AC_TYPE_UINTPTR_T, so that should be easy.
--
Sent
Magnus Hagander writes:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 16:10, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Well, there is nothing outright wrong with this patch, but without any
>> measurable effect, it is too early to commit it. At least I would like to
>> see
>> the Datum typedef to be changed to use intptr_t and the
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 16:10, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 August 2009 14:03:34 Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
>> Robert Haas wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> > > On Friday 26 June 2009 12:07:24 Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
>> > >> Included is a conceptual patc
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 14:03:34 Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > > On Friday 26 June 2009 12:07:24 Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
> > >> Included is a conceptual patch to use intptr_t. Comments are welcome.
> > >
> > > After
Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On Friday 26 June 2009 12:07:24 Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
> >> Included is a conceptual patch to use intptr_t. Comments are welcome.
> >
> > After closer inspection, not having a win64 box available, I have my doubt
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Friday 26 June 2009 12:07:24 Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
>> Included is a conceptual patch to use intptr_t. Comments are welcome.
>
> After closer inspection, not having a win64 box available, I have my doubts
> whether this patch actually doe
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 10:35, Dave Page wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>
>> IIRC, there is no 64-bit support in VC++2005 Express. There is a
>> 64-bit compiler in the SDK though, that can probably be made to work
>> with it. I think the official support for this
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> IIRC, there is no 64-bit support in VC++2005 Express. There is a
> 64-bit compiler in the SDK though, that can probably be made to work
> with it. I think the official support for this (SDK compiler
> integrated with VC++ Express) only arr
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 02:24, Dave Page wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:53 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> Dave,
>>
>> * Dave Page (dp...@pgadmin.org) wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>>> > Do you need access to a Win64 box? I can provide you access to a
>>> > Win
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:53 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Dave,
>
> * Dave Page (dp...@pgadmin.org) wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> > Do you need access to a Win64 box? I can provide you access to a
>> > Win64 system, which Dave Page and Magnus already have acces
Dave,
* Dave Page (dp...@pgadmin.org) wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Do you need access to a Win64 box? I can provide you access to a
> > Win64 system, which Dave Page and Magnus already have access to, if it
> > would be useful..
>
> I haven't got round to i
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> Peter,
>
> * Peter Eisentraut (pete...@gmx.net) wrote:
>> After closer inspection, not having a win64 box available, I have my doubts
>> whether this patch actually does anything. Foremost, it doesn't touch the
>> definition of the Datum typ
Peter,
* Peter Eisentraut (pete...@gmx.net) wrote:
> After closer inspection, not having a win64 box available, I have my doubts
> whether this patch actually does anything. Foremost, it doesn't touch the
> definition of the Datum type, which ought to be at the core of a change like
> this.
D
On Friday 26 June 2009 12:07:24 Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
> Included is a conceptual patch to use intptr_t. Comments are welcome.
After closer inspection, not having a win64 box available, I have my doubts
whether this patch actually does anything. Foremost, it doesn't touch the
definition of the D
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On Monday 29 June 2009 17:20:09 Tom Lane wrote:
>> If it were
>> actually possible to support Win64 with only a couple of dozen lines
>> of changes, we would have done it long since.
> Possibly, or everyone was too confused and didn't know where to start.
Well, the pre
On Monday 29 June 2009 17:20:09 Tom Lane wrote:
> The problem with this is that it's barely the tip of the iceberg.
> One point I recall is that there are lots of places where "%lu" is
> assumed to be the correct format to print Datums with.
Hmm. I tried this out. typedef Datum to be long long
Tsutomu Yamada writes:
> Yes, I have read through the discusion but it seems somewhat faded
> out. This is because no platform other than Windows has 64bit
> pointer issues IMO. I think using intptr_t is cleaner and will bring
> more portability. Moreover it will solve Windows 64bit pointer issues
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On Friday 26 June 2009 12:07:24 Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
> > Proposal: More portable way to support 64bit platforms
> >
> > Short description:
> >
> > Current PostgreSQL implementation has some portability issues to
> > support 64bit platforms: pointer calculations us
On Friday 26 June 2009 12:07:24 Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
> Proposal: More portable way to support 64bit platforms
>
> Short description:
>
> Current PostgreSQL implementation has some portability issues to
> support 64bit platforms: pointer calculations using long is not
> portable, for example on Win
Proposal: More portable way to support 64bit platforms
Short description:
Current PostgreSQL implementation has some portability issues to
support 64bit platforms: pointer calculations using long is not
portable, for example on Windows x64 platform. We propose to use
intptr_t instead of long, whi
21 matches
Mail list logo
