Thread: We no longer have a fallback for machines without working int64
As pointed out here http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2010-01/msg00145.php the current zic code doesn't cope gracefully with lack of working int64. Considering the trouble we've gone to throughout the rest of the system to support such compilers, it's a bit annoying to have this little detail break it. On the other hand, it's unclear that anybody still cares. (Other than people running SCO Openserver, for whom I have little sympathy anyway.) Thoughts? Is it worth expending any energy on? regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > As pointed out here > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2010-01/msg00145.php > the current zic code doesn't cope gracefully with lack of working > int64. Considering the trouble we've gone to throughout the rest > of the system to support such compilers, it's a bit annoying to > have this little detail break it. On the other hand, it's unclear > that anybody still cares. (Other than people running SCO Openserver, > for whom I have little sympathy anyway.) > > Thoughts? Is it worth expending any energy on? Yeah, I'd say this much: #ifdef INT64_IS_BUSTED #error "unsupported platform" #endif -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 10:47:33AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > As pointed out here > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2010-01/msg00145.php > the current zic code doesn't cope gracefully with lack of working > int64. Considering the trouble we've gone to throughout the rest of > the system to support such compilers, it's a bit annoying to have > this little detail break it. On the other hand, it's unclear that > anybody still cares. (Other than people running SCO Openserver, for > whom I have little sympathy anyway.) > > Thoughts? There was a use case for supporting non-working int64, but reality has changed. > Is it worth expending any energy on? Not IMHO. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> writes: > On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 10:47:33AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> As pointed out here >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2010-01/msg00145.php >> the current zic code doesn't cope gracefully with lack of working >> int64. Considering the trouble we've gone to throughout the rest of >> the system to support such compilers, it's a bit annoying to have >> this little detail break it. On the other hand, it's unclear that >> anybody still cares. (Other than people running SCO Openserver, for >> whom I have little sympathy anyway.) > There was a use case for supporting non-working int64, but reality has > changed. Yeah, maybe it's time to forget about that. If so, we ought to change configure to spit up if it can't find a working 64-bit type. Failing much later on with a strange message from zic isn't too acceptable. I propose doing that in both HEAD and 8.4, since both those branches are broken for someone with such a compiler. regards, tom lane