Re: INT64_MIN and _MAX - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Gierth
Subject Re: INT64_MIN and _MAX
Date
Msg-id 874mpdehka.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: INT64_MIN and _MAX  (Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk>)
Responses Re: INT64_MIN and _MAX  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk> writes:

>>>>> "Petr" == Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>>> So wouldn't it make more sense to move these definitions into c.h and>>> standardize their usage?
Petr> I was thinking the same when I've seen Peter's version of NumericPetr> abbreviations patch. So +1 for that.

Hm, it looks like the same could be said for INT32_MIN and _MAX; some
places use INT_MIN etc., others say "we shouldn't assume int = int32"
and use (-0x7fffffff - 1) or whatever instead.

-- 
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Using 128-bit integers for sum, avg and statistics aggregates
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Using 128-bit integers for sum, avg and statistics aggregates