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?
