Re: We no longer have a fallback for machines without working int64 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: We no longer have a fallback for machines without working int64
Date
Msg-id 20100105160407.GF3660@alvh.no-ip.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to We no longer have a fallback for machines without working int64  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> As pointed out here
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2010-01/msg00145.php
> the current zic code doesn't cope gracefully with lack of working
> int64.  Considering the trouble we've gone to throughout the rest
> of the system to support such compilers, it's a bit annoying to
> have this little detail break it.  On the other hand, it's unclear
> that anybody still cares.  (Other than people running SCO Openserver,
> for whom I have little sympathy anyway.)
> 
> Thoughts?  Is it worth expending any energy on?

Yeah, I'd say this much:

#ifdef INT64_IS_BUSTED
#error "unsupported platform"
#endif

-- 
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_migrator issues
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: I: TODO: Allow substring/replace() to get/set bit values