Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 01:01, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> 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 you think we might do differently? ?There is only one
> >> sane definition for ssize_t on a 64-bit platform.
> >
> > 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;
> >
> > ? ? ? ?And python has it as:
> > ? ? ? ?typedef __int64 ssize_t;
>
> You're missing the crucial point: That is that PostgreSQL uses long on
> *32-bit*. Python uses __int64 on *64-bit*. PostgreSQL didn't *have* a
> definition on 64-bit, so we fell back on the 32-bit one.
OK, so my question is whether __int64 is the right definition or only
what Python chose.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
