Re: should we add a XLogRecPtr/LSN SQL type? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: should we add a XLogRecPtr/LSN SQL type?
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmobNKoRtuNM_FBQwevtooq5T+pjpKJu5tA5nmYKDnjvkRg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: should we add a XLogRecPtr/LSN SQL type?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: should we add a XLogRecPtr/LSN SQL type?
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 10:03 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>> GET_8_BYTES only exists for 64bit systems.
>
>> Right, I got that far.  So it looks like float8, int8, timestamp,
>> timestamptz, and money all have behavior contingent on
>> USE_FLOAT8_BYVAL, making that symbol a misnomer in every way.  But
>> since we've already marched pretty far down that path I suppose we
>> should keep marching.
>
> You need somebody to help you with getting that working on 32-bit
> platforms?  Because it needs to get fixed, or reverted, PDQ.

Hopefully the commit I just pushed will fix it.  It now works on my
machine with and without --disable-float8-byval.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: should we add a XLogRecPtr/LSN SQL type?
Next
From: Bernd Helmle
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add a GUC to report whether data page checksums are enabled.