status of 64bit ints? was: Re: Transaction ID wraparound: problem and proposed solution - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Marko Kreen
Subject status of 64bit ints? was: Re: Transaction ID wraparound: problem and proposed solution
Date
Msg-id 20010120175337.B10475@l-t.ee
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Transaction ID wraparound: problem and proposed solution  (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>)
Responses Re: status of 64bit ints? was: Re: Transaction ID wraparound: problem and proposed solution  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
> > The first thought that comes to mind is that XIDs should be promoted to
> > eight bytes.  However there are several practical problems with this:
> > * portability --- I don't believe long long int exists on all the
> > platforms we support.

> >             regards, tom lane

How long will such platforms be supported?  When will 64bit be a
requirement?

The c.h has following lines in case there is not 64 bit ints:

/* Won't actually work, but fall back to long int so that code* compiles */
typedef long int int64;
typedef unsigned long int uint64;
#define INT64_IS_BUSTED


At the memont the int64 is mostly used in 'int8' case, so its
not too bad.  But probably there will be more cases where int64
is useful, so PostgreSQL will start misbehaving on those
platforms, which is worse than not supporting them officially.

Or should int64 be avoided at any cost?

-- 
marko



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: ncm@zembu.com (Nathan Myers)
Date:
Subject: Re: Transaction ID wraparound: problem and proposed solution
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: AW: AW: AW: Re: tinterval - operator problems on AIX