Tom Lane writes:
> What surprises me more is the implication that this is the only place
> that makes such a bogus assumption about the size of time_t. I'd have
> guessed there are more places...
A lot of those were fixed for 7.0.
--
Peter Eisentraut Sernanders väg 10:115
peter_e@gmx.net 75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/ Sweden