David Fetter writes:
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 10:47:33AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> As pointed out here
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2010-01/msg00145.php
>> the current zic code doesn't cope gracefully with lack of working
>> int64. Considering the trouble we've gone to through
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 10:47:33AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> As pointed out here
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2010-01/msg00145.php
> the current zic code doesn't cope gracefully with lack of working
> int64. Considering the trouble we've gone to throughout the rest of
> the system
Tom Lane wrote:
> As pointed out here
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2010-01/msg00145.php
> the current zic code doesn't cope gracefully with lack of working
> int64. Considering the trouble we've gone to throughout the rest
> of the system to support such compilers, it's a bit ann
As pointed out here
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2010-01/msg00145.php
the current zic code doesn't cope gracefully with lack of working
int64. Considering the trouble we've gone to throughout the rest
of the system to support such compilers, it's a bit annoying to
have this little
