Re: Transaction ID wraparound: problem and proposed solution

* Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> [001105 09:39]:
> Hannu Krosing writes:
> 
> > > The first thought that comes to mind is that XIDs should be promoted to
> > > eight bytes.  However there are several practical problems with this:
> > > * portability --- I don't believe long long int exists on all the
> > > platforms we support.
> > 
> > I suspect that gcc at least supports long long on all OS-s we support
> 
> Uh, we don't want to depend on gcc, do we?
Doesn't C99 *REQUIRE* long long?  I know the SCO UDK Compiler has had
it for a long time.  I know it's early in C99's life, but...


> 
> But we could make the XID a struct of two 4-byte integers, at the obvious
> increase in storage size.
What is the difference between a native long long and a struct of 2
long's? 


-- 
Larry Rosenman                      http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812 (voice) Internet: ler@lerctr.org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749