Re: ssize_t vs win64
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: ssize_t vs win64 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 201001030001.o0301E519189@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: ssize_t vs win64 (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: ssize_t vs win64
Re: ssize_t vs win64 |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes: > > Tom Lane wrote: > >> I think the Python guys are up against the same problem as us, namely > >> substituting for the platform's failure to define the type. > > > I am unclear if accepting what Python chose as a default is the right > > route vs. doing more research. > > What exactly do you think we might do differently? There is only one > sane definition for ssize_t on a 64-bit platform. Well, I saw two definitions listed in this thread, and it wasn't clear to me the Python one was known to be the correct one: PostgreSQL has it astypedef long ssize_t;And python has it as:typedef __int64 ssize_t; -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: