> Excerpts from Kohei KaiGai's message of jue sep 27 01:01:18 -0300 2012:
>
>> * I have a question. What is the meaning of INT64_IS_BUSTED?
>> It seems to me a marker to indicate a platform without 64bit support.
>> However, the commit 901be0fad4034c9cf8a3588fd6cf2ece82e4b8ce
>> says as follows:
>> | Remove all the special-case code for INT64_IS_BUSTED, per decision that
>> | we're not going to support that anymore.
>
> Yeah, I think we should just get rid of those bits. I don't remember
> seeing *any* complaint when INT64_IS_BUSTED was removed, which means
> nobody was using that code anyway.
Ok.
> Now there is one more problem in this area which is that the patch
> defined a new type pg_int64 for frontend code (postgres_ext.h). This
> seems a bad idea to me. We already have int64 defined in c.h. Should
> we expose int64 to postgres_ext.h somehow? Should we use standard-
> mandated int64_t instead? One way would be to have a new configure
> check for int64_t, and if that type doesn't exist, then just don't
> provide the 64 bit functionality to frontend.
This has been already explained in upthread:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-09/msg00447.php
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp
