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