Re: Interval->day proposal
От | Michael Glaesemann |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Interval->day proposal |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 8E9DCE32-747D-4CD5-89C3-7197343C00B4@myrealbox.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Interval->day proposal (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Interval->day proposal
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On May 31, 2005, at 12:48 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Michael Glaesemann <grzm@myrealbox.com> writes: > > > >> tm_mday is an int value, which is only guaranteed to be 2 >> bytes (though it may be larger), if I understand correctly. >> >> >> > > Actually, practically all of the Postgres code assumes int is at least > 32 bits. Feel free to change pg_tm's field to be declared int32 > instead > of just int if that bothers you, but it is really quite academic. > > Thanks for the clarification. My instinct would be to change so that it's no longer just an assumption. Is there any benefit to changing the other pg_tm int fields to int32? I imagine int is used quite a bit throughout the code, and I'd think assuming 32-bit ints would have bitten people in the past if it were invalid, so perhaps changing them is unnecessary. > I'd make the on-disk field an int32, taking the struct to 16 bytes. > > Will do. Thanks for you comments. Michael Glaesemann grzm myrealbox com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: