Re: [HACKERS] Should logtape.c blocks be of type long?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Peter Geoghegan
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Should logtape.c blocks be of type long?
Дата
Msg-id CAH2-Wzm5_EOAJrPGkZYc3w-ASCca59Nsfz4SOnxBaV=LpD-=rA@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Should logtape.c blocks be of type long?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] Should logtape.c blocks be of type long?  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> [ shrug... ]  If you're excited enough about it to do the work, I won't
> stand in your way.  But I don't find it to be a stop-ship issue.

I'll add it to my todo list for Postgres 10.

I think it's worth being consistent about a restriction like this, as
Robert said. Given that fixing this issue will not affect the machine
code generated by compilers for the majority of platforms we support,
doing so seems entirely worthwhile to me.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Should logtape.c blocks be of type long?
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] I propose killing PL/Tcl's "modules" infrastructure