Re: A Windows x64 port of PostgreSQL - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Mark Mielke
Subject Re: A Windows x64 port of PostgreSQL
Date
Msg-id 486D09DB.3060101@mark.mielke.cc
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: A Windows x64 port of PostgreSQL  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> To get a working WIN64 port it'd be necessary to go around and replace
> long with size_t/ssize_t in the places where it matters --- but there
> are not 450 of them, I don't think.  And I'd advise not touching the
> places that use int; that will just bloat the patch and make it harder
> to review, without actually buying any functionality

Plus - changing them all to 64-bit integers even for cases that will not 
ever require > 32-bit integers, is likely to be slower in all cases 
except for cases those that can be optimized to use only registers. I 
would use "int" by choice for any size that will never extend beyond 1 
Gb as it is likely to perform the best.

Cheers,
mark

-- 
Mark Mielke <mark@mielke.cc>



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dean Rasheed
Date:
Subject: Re: Auto-explain patch
Next
From: Garick Hamlin
Date:
Subject: Solaris ident authentication using unix domain sockets