On Tuesday 04 August 2009 14:03:34 Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Peter Eisentraut<peter_e@gmx.net> 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 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.
> > >
> > > Now I see that you call this a "conceptual patch". Perhaps we should
> > > wait until you have developed it into a complete patch?
> >
> > Is there any reason to consider this patch any further during this
> > CommitFest? It seems that this is a long way from being ready to go.
>
> I'm sorry for delaying response.
>
> This patch is needed as a base of the fix for Windows x64 in the future.
>
> There are still a lot of corrections necessary for Win x64.
> (typedef Datum, shared buffer, "%lu" messages, headers, build scripts, ...)
> We are trying these now, and want to offer the result to the next Commit
> Fest.
>
> Because we are glad if this pointer patch is confirmed at the early stage,
> we submitted patch to this Commit Fest.
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 fallout from that
cleaned up.
