On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On August 31, 2016 3:06:23 PM PDT, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > >>In other painfully pedantic news, I should point out that >>sizeof(size_t) isn't necessarily word size (the most generic >>definition of word size for the architecture), contrary to my reading >>of the 0002-* patch comments. I'm mostly talking thinking about x86_64 >>here, of course. > > Uh?
Sorry, I really should have not said anything. It is true that x86_64 word size is sometimes reported as 16 and/or 32 bits [1], because of legacy issues. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_(computer_architecture)#Table_of_word_sizes -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
