Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: Remove pg_strtouint64(), use strtoull() directly - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Remove pg_strtouint64(), use strtoull() directly
Date
Msg-id d104ce6d-cb3e-6b80-9fab-0b7cb27f9d62@enterprisedb.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Remove pg_strtouint64(), use strtoull() directly  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Remove pg_strtouint64(), use strtoull() directly  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view 
On 10.12.21 16:25, Tom Lane wrote:
> Our experience with the variable size of "long" has left a sufficiently
> bad taste in my mouth that I'm not enthused about adding hard-wired
> assumptions that "long long" is identical to int64.  So this seems like
> it's going in the wrong direction, and giving up portability that we
> might want back someday.

What kind of scenario do you have in mind?  Someone making their long 
long int 128 bits?

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Failed transaction statistics to measure the logical replication progress
Next
From: Peter Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: row filtering for logical replication