Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for port testing on fmgr changes -- Results!

Tom Lane writes:

> What surprises me more is the implication that this is the only place
> that makes such a bogus assumption about the size of time_t.  I'd have
> guessed there are more places...

A lot of those were fixed for 7.0.

--
Peter Eisentraut                  Sernanders väg 10:115
peter_e@gmx.net                   75262 Uppsala
http://yi.org/peter-e/            Sweden