Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Move 'long long' check to c.h

2010-05-24 Thread Stephen Frost
* Michael Meskes (mes...@postgresql.org) wrote: > > I think the current coding is extremely fragile (if it indeed works at > > all) because of its assumption that has been included > > Well, this is the case in the code so far. Right, the existing code is after limits.h is included, my suggesti

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Move 'long long' check to c.h

2010-05-24 Thread Michael Meskes
> I think the current coding is extremely fragile (if it indeed works at > all) because of its assumption that has been included Well, this is the case in the code so far. > already. In any case, we have configure tests that exist only for the > benefit of contrib modules, so it's hard to argu

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Move 'long long' check to c.h

2010-05-24 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Meskes writes: > On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 11:20:50PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: >> git diff -p), I noted that c.h is already included by both extern.h >> and ecpg.header through postgres_fe.h. Given this and that we're >> already doing alot of similar #define's there (unlike in those othe

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Move 'long long' check to c.h

2010-05-24 Thread Michael Meskes
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 11:20:50PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > git diff -p), I noted that c.h is already included by both extern.h > and ecpg.header through postgres_fe.h. Given this and that we're > already doing alot of similar #define's there (unlike in those other > files), I felt c.

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Move 'long long' check to c.h

2010-05-24 Thread Michael Meskes
On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 11:50:00AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote: > > If we need this we should do it properly with autoconf. I absolutely agree and planed to do that *after* the release if it makes sense for the rest of PG, but wouldn't want to mess with it in the current situtation. On the other ha

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Move 'long long' check to c.h

2010-05-23 Thread Stephen Frost
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Ugh. Moving that to c.h doesn't render it not junk code. (For one > thing, it will not operate as intended if you haven't previously > #included , which in fact is not included in c.h.) Doh. > If we need this we should do it properly with autoconf. My a

Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] Move 'long long' check to c.h

2010-05-23 Thread Tom Lane
Stephen Frost writes: > While reviewing bfba40e2c7b3909d3de13bd1b83b7e85fa8dfec2 (mmm, we like > git diff -p), I noted that c.h is already included by both extern.h > and ecpg.header through postgres_fe.h. Given this and that we're > already doing alot of similar #define's there (unlike i

[HACKERS] [PATCH] Move 'long long' check to c.h

2010-05-22 Thread Stephen Frost
Greetings, While reviewing bfba40e2c7b3909d3de13bd1b83b7e85fa8dfec2 (mmm, we like git diff -p), I noted that c.h is already included by both extern.h and ecpg.header through postgres_fe.h. Given this and that we're already doing alot of similar #define's there (unlike in those other fil