Re: [HACKERS] Should logtape.c blocks be of type long? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Should logtape.c blocks be of type long?
Date
Msg-id CAH2-Wzm5_EOAJrPGkZYc3w-ASCca59Nsfz4SOnxBaV=LpD-=rA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Should logtape.c blocks be of type long?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Should logtape.c blocks be of type long?  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> [ shrug... ]  If you're excited enough about it to do the work, I won't
> stand in your way.  But I don't find it to be a stop-ship issue.

I'll add it to my todo list for Postgres 10.

I think it's worth being consistent about a restriction like this, as
Robert said. Given that fixing this issue will not affect the machine
code generated by compilers for the majority of platforms we support,
doing so seems entirely worthwhile to me.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Should logtape.c blocks be of type long?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] I propose killing PL/Tcl's "modules" infrastructure