Thread: AW: AW: AW: Could turn on -O2 in AIX

> > My solution would be to use INT_MIN for all ports, which has the advantage 
> > that the above problematic comparison can be converted to !=,
> > since no integer will be smaller than INT_MIN.
> 
> I agree.  When I was looking at this code this morning, I was wondering
> what INT_MIN was supposed to represent anyway, if NOSTART_ABSTIME is
> INT_MIN + 1.  I think someone messed this up between 4.2 and Postgres95.

Has there been any consensus yet ? If yes, could you apply my patch please ?
Or should I ask Bruce, for his "faster than his shadow" patch services ?

Thanks
Andreas

Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at> writes:
>> I agree.  When I was looking at this code this morning, I was wondering
>> what INT_MIN was supposed to represent anyway, if NOSTART_ABSTIME is
>> INT_MIN + 1.  I think someone messed this up between 4.2 and Postgres95.

> Has there been any consensus yet ? If yes, could you apply my patch please ?

I have it on my to-do list, but I was waiting to see if Thomas had an
objection (since he knows more about the datetime types than the rest
of us).  He's been at Comdex the last few days, which probably explains
the delay.
        regards, tom lane