Tom Lane wrote: > "Qingqing Zhou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > AFAICS, int32 and int are exactly the same thing in PostgreSQL. For the > > machine int is not 32 bits long, PostgreSQL won't even run. > > Ideally we should operate correctly if "int" is 64 bits. In practice > I agree that making contrib work would be mighty far down the list of > things to fix... > > It appears to me that the current de-facto standard for C on 64-bit > machines is > char 8 bits > short 16 bits > int 32 bits > long 64 bits > Promoting "int" to 64 bits has a big problem: you have to drop one of > the widths entirely, because there is no other basic type allowed by > C. (int16_t and the others are only typedefs not new basic types.) > So I'm not really expecting to see int = 64 bits any time soon. > > As for the other direction (int = 16 bits), there's no real hope of > running Postgres on a 16-bit machine anyway :-(
Agreed. CVS change made for clarity, int->int32. -- Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
