Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:
>
>>Yeah, I've been getting that since Wednesday morning (west coast USA
>>time), and reported it Wednesday evening, but no one else has replied to
>>that post, so I thought maybe it was somehow related to the othee ecpg
>>issues being discussed.
>
>
> I've committed fixes for the problems noted by gcc. I wouldn't care to
> bet that the code actually works though. The HAVE_INT64_TIMESTAMP paths
> in ecpg seem to be totally untested :-(
>
Thanks, Tom. It does at least compile cleanly now. I don't use ecpg, so
I can't say whether the changes actually work.
Joe