status of 64bit ints? was: Re: Transaction ID wraparound: problem and proposed solution
| От | Marko Kreen |
|---|---|
| Тема | status of 64bit ints? was: Re: Transaction ID wraparound: problem and proposed solution |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 20010120175337.B10475@l-t.ee обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Transaction ID wraparound: problem and proposed solution (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: status of 64bit ints? was: Re: Transaction ID wraparound: problem and proposed solution
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
> > 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. > > regards, tom lane How long will such platforms be supported? When will 64bit be a requirement? The c.h has following lines in case there is not 64 bit ints: /* Won't actually work, but fall back to long int so that code* compiles */ typedef long int int64; typedef unsigned long int uint64; #define INT64_IS_BUSTED At the memont the int64 is mostly used in 'int8' case, so its not too bad. But probably there will be more cases where int64 is useful, so PostgreSQL will start misbehaving on those platforms, which is worse than not supporting them officially. Or should int64 be avoided at any cost? -- marko
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: