On sön, 2010-01-03 at 00:24 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 00:20, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On lör, 2010-01-02 at 16:29 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 16:23, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> > On lör, 2010-01-02 at 15:42 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrot
Bruce Momjian writes:
> OK, so my question is whether __int64 is the right definition or only
> what Python chose.
I see no reason to question either the width or the signedness.
If you do, feel free to research away.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 01:01, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Bruce Momjian writes:
> >> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> >> I think the Python guys are up against the same problem as us, namely
> >> >> substituting for the platform's failure to define the type.
> >>
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 01:01, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian writes:
>> > Tom Lane wrote:
>> >> I think the Python guys are up against the same problem as us, namely
>> >> substituting for the platform's failure to define the type.
>>
>> > I am unclear if accepting what P
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Well, I saw two definitions listed in this thread, and it wasn't clear
> to me the Python one was known to be the correct one:
> PostgreSQL has it as
> typedef long ssize_t;
That one is our 32-bit-only definition.
regards, tom lane
--
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I think the Python guys are up against the same problem as us, namely
> >> substituting for the platform's failure to define the type.
>
> > I am unclear if accepting what Python chose as a default is the right
> > route vs. doing m
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think the Python guys are up against the same problem as us, namely
>> substituting for the platform's failure to define the type.
> I am unclear if accepting what Python chose as a default is the right
> route vs. doing more research.
What exactly do
Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
> > On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 00:20, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> >> Seems kind of buggy. ?They shouldn't be defining it at all.
>
> > Why not? Should they just stop using it? In that case, so should we, no?
>
> What's buggy is M$ failing to provide it in the
Magnus Hagander writes:
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 00:20, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Seems kind of buggy. They shouldn't be defining it at all.
> Why not? Should they just stop using it? In that case, so should we, no?
What's buggy is M$ failing to provide it in their header.
It's unlikely they
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 00:20, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On lör, 2010-01-02 at 16:29 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 16:23, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> > On lör, 2010-01-02 at 15:42 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> >> When trying to build plpython on win64, it fails because
On lör, 2010-01-02 at 16:29 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 16:23, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On lör, 2010-01-02 at 15:42 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >> When trying to build plpython on win64, it fails because ssize_t is
> >> defined differently.
> >>
> >> PostgreSQL ha
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 16:59, Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander writes:
>> I'm not entirely sure what the type is for, though,
>
> It's supposed to be the same width as size_t but signed. I would assume
> that it should be 64 bits on Win64.
Yeah, seems reasonable. I'll put in that #ifdef in win
Magnus Hagander writes:
> I'm not entirely sure what the type is for, though,
It's supposed to be the same width as size_t but signed. I would assume
that it should be 64 bits on Win64.
According to SUS this type should be provided by sys/types.h:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/x
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 16:23, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On lör, 2010-01-02 at 15:42 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> When trying to build plpython on win64, it fails because ssize_t is
>> defined differently.
>>
>> PostgreSQL has it as
>> typedef long ssize_t;
>>
>> And python has it as:
>> typede
On lör, 2010-01-02 at 15:42 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> When trying to build plpython on win64, it fails because ssize_t is
> defined differently.
>
> PostgreSQL has it as
> typedef long ssize_t;
>
> And python has it as:
> typedef __int64 ssize_t;
What file/line is that? I don't see that i
When trying to build plpython on win64, it fails because ssize_t is
defined differently.
PostgreSQL has it as
typedef long ssize_t;
And python has it as:
typedef __int64 ssize_t;
The postgresql deifnition comes from include/port/win32.h, which leads
me to think that we should just change that on
16 matches
Mail list logo
