Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Peter Eisentraut
Тема Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos
Дата
Msg-id 1a0cc462-5619-47ef-bad9-06b96b2f277f@eisentraut.org
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On 18.04.24 02:31, Thomas Munro wrote:
> For limits, why do we have this:
> 
> - * stdint.h limits aren't guaranteed to have compatible types with our fixed
> - * width types. So just define our own.
> 
> ?  I mean, how could they not have compatible types?

The commit for this was 62e2a8dc2c7 and the thread was 
<https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/E1YatAv-0007cu-KW%40gemulon.postgresql.org>. 
  The problem was that something like

     snprintf(bufm, sizeof(bufm), INT64_FORMAT, SEQ_MINVALUE);

could issue a warning if, say, INT64_FORMAT, which refers to our own 
int64, is based on long int, but SEQ_MINVALUE, which was then INT64_MIN, 
which refers to int64_t, which could be long long int.

So this is correct.  If we introduce the use of int64_t, then you need 
to be consistent still:

int64, PG_INT64_MIN, PG_INT64_MAX, INT64_FORMAT

int64_t, INT64_MIN, INT64_MAX, PRId64



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: shveta malik
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: promotion related handling in pg_sync_replication_slots()
Следующее
От: Peter Eisentraut
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Idea Feedback: psql \h misses -> Offers Links?