Re: perl checking - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Subject Re: perl checking
Date
Msg-id 20180523.123957.64315921.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: perl checking  (Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
At Tue, 22 May 2018 15:02:46 -0400, Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> wrote in
<a70c49ec-d816-9fd6-1565-38fb20cc7206@2ndQuadrant.com>
> > -    elsif ($in < 0x100000000)
> > +    elsif ($in <= 0xffffffff)

This is one of my thougts and the reason for regarding it sour is
the following.

> > For consistency, the other arms of the "if" should be adjusted
> > similarly.

> Yeah. I tested this on the oldest 32 but perls I could find, the msys
> and activestate perls on the XP machine that runs frogmouth and
> friends. Even though they both have an ivsize of 4, the arithmetic
> seems to work properly. Perhaps they store larger numbers as doubles,
> which you should be able to do exactly up to about 52 bit
> integers. The other 32 bit machine I have is an Ubuntu 16.04 VM, but
> there the perl has an ivsize of 8, so of course it does the right
> thing.
> 
> We don't normally use these scripts anyway, so I'll go with this
> suggestion without further investigation.

Agreed. I'm fine with the direction.

regards.

-- 
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Postgres 11 release notes
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: [sqlsmith] Unpinning error in parallel worker