Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos
От
Peter Eisentraut
Тема
Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos
Дата
Msg-id
b0870e2f-2b41-495d-b225-75b7991a1d12@eisentraut.org
Ответ на
Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos (Peter Eisentraut)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com>
Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com>
Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com>
Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com>
Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos Japin Li <japinli@hotmail.com>
On 12.09.25 15:51, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On 04.09.25 11:01, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> On 03.09.25 17:04, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >>> Consider a third-party extension that does something like dblink or >>> postgres_fdw. It will compile against a server and also a libpq. >>> The server and the libpq might not be of the same major version. (On >>> Debian, only the latest libpq will be available.) If you have for >>> example server version 17 and libpq version 18, then you will get the >>> pg_int64 typedef both from postgres_ext.h (from the PG17 server >>> includes) and from libpq-fe.h (from PG18 libpq). That is not allowed >>> in C99, and even if it were, the underlying types of PG_INT64_TYPE >>> (in PG17) and int64_t (in PG18) might be different (long int vs. long >>> long int) and this would fail. >>> >>> I think this could be fixed by moving the definition of pg_int64 back >>> to postgres_ext.h. Then extension builds would only get one >>> definition, because of the header guards. Depending on include >>> order, they could get a different underlying type, but that's a >>> smaller problem, since the type is supposed to be deprecated anyway. >> >> Here is a patch that has been reported to fix the problem. > > I propose to go ahead with this patch in a few days if there are no > other solutions coming. done
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления