On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 16:10, Peter Eisentraut<peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 August 2009 14:03:34 Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Peter Eisentraut<peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>> > > On Friday 26 June 2009 12:07:24 Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
>> > >> Included is a conceptual patch to use intptr_t. Comments are welcome.
>> > >
>> > > After closer inspection, not having a win64 box available, I have my
>> > > doubts whether this patch actually does anything. Foremost, it doesn't
>> > > touch the definition of the Datum type, which ought to be at the core
>> > > of a change like this.
>> > >
>> > > Now I see that you call this a "conceptual patch". Perhaps we should
>> > > wait until you have developed it into a complete patch?
>> >
>> > Is there any reason to consider this patch any further during this
>> > CommitFest? It seems that this is a long way from being ready to go.
>>
>> I'm sorry for delaying response.
>>
>> This patch is needed as a base of the fix for Windows x64 in the future.
>>
>> There are still a lot of corrections necessary for Win x64.
>> (typedef Datum, shared buffer, "%lu" messages, headers, build scripts, ...)
>> We are trying these now, and want to offer the result to the next Commit
>> Fest.
>>
>> Because we are glad if this pointer patch is confirmed at the early stage,
>> we submitted patch to this Commit Fest.
>
> Well, there is nothing outright wrong with this patch, but without any
> measurable effect, it is too early to commit it. At least I would like to see
> the Datum typedef to be changed to use intptr_t and the fallout from that
> cleaned up.
+1.
I think it's good that it was posted for a quick review of the general
idea, but I agree that it's too early to commit it until we can see
some actual benefit. And I expect the Datum changes to be much larger
than this, so we can just review/apply them as one when the time
comes.
-- Magnus HaganderSelf: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
