Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> On 10.12.21 16:25, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Our experience with the variable size of "long" has left a sufficiently
>> bad taste in my mouth that I'm not enthused about adding hard-wired
>> assumptions that "long long" is identical to int64. So this seems like
>> it's going in the wrong direction, and giving up portability that we
>> might want back someday.
> What kind of scenario do you have in mind? Someone making their long
> long int 128 bits?
Yeah, exactly. That seems like a natural evolution:
short -> 2 bytes
int -> 4 bytes
long -> 8 bytes
long long -> 16 bytes
so I'm surprised that vendors haven't done that already instead
of inventing hacks like __int128.
Our current hard-coded uses of long long are all written on the
assumption that it's *at least* 64 bits, so we'd survive OK on
such a platform so long as we don't start confusing it with
*exactly* 64 bits.
regards, tom lane
