On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 01:01, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
>> > Tom Lane wrote:
>> >> I think the Python guys are up against the same problem as us, namely
>> >> substituting for the platform's failure to define the type.
>>
>> > I am unclear if accepting what Python chose as a default is the right
>> > route vs. doing more research.
>>
>> What exactly do you think we might do differently? There is only one
>> sane definition for ssize_t on a 64-bit platform.
>
> Well, I saw two definitions listed in this thread, and it wasn't clear
> to me the Python one was known to be the correct one:
>
> PostgreSQL has it as
> typedef long ssize_t;
>
> And python has it as:
> typedef __int64 ssize_t;
You're missing the crucial point: That is that PostgreSQL uses long on
*32-bit*. Python uses __int64 on *64-bit*. PostgreSQL didn't *have* a
definition on 64-bit, so we fell back on the 32-bit one.
-- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
