[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
>
> > There were only a few to fix, so I fixed them.
> >
> > > Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Which one of these should we use?
> > > > int4 is a data type, int32 isn't. c.h has DatumGetInt8, but no
> > > > DatumGetInt64; i
> There were only a few to fix, so I fixed them.
>
> > Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Which one of these should we use?
> > > int4 is a data type, int32 isn't. c.h has DatumGetInt8, but no
> > > DatumGetInt64; it also has DatumGetInt32 but no
> DatumGetInt4. fmgr has
Wait
Done.
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > There were only a few to fix, so I fixed them.
>
> I don't think it's a good idea to write unspecified-width "int" in
> the struct decls for Interval and friends. If the compiler decides
> someday that that's int8, things break because the
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> There were only a few to fix, so I fixed them.
I don't think it's a good idea to write unspecified-width "int" in
the struct decls for Interval and friends. If the compiler decides
someday that that's int8, things break because the physical size of
Int
There were only a few to fix, so I fixed them.
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Which one of these should we use?
> > int4 is a data type, int32 isn't. c.h has DatumGetInt8, but no
> > DatumGetInt64; it also has DatumGetInt32 but no DatumGetInt4. fmgr has
> > PG_GETARG_INT32
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> I think that int32 etc are better choices at the C level because of
> >> the well-established precedent for naming integer types after numbers
> >> of bits in C code. I don't feel any strong urge to go around and
> >> change the existing misusages,
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I think that int32 etc are better choices at the C level because of
>> the well-established precedent for naming integer types after numbers
>> of bits in C code. I don't feel any strong urge to go around and
>> change the existing misusages, but if yo
> Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Which one of these should we use?
> > int4 is a data type, int32 isn't. c.h has DatumGetInt8, but no
> > DatumGetInt64; it also has DatumGetInt32 but no DatumGetInt4. fmgr has
> > PG_GETARG_INT32 et al. Inconsistency everywhere.
>
> The origin
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Which one of these should we use?
> int4 is a data type, int32 isn't. c.h has DatumGetInt8, but no
> DatumGetInt64; it also has DatumGetInt32 but no DatumGetInt4. fmgr has
> PG_GETARG_INT32 et al. Inconsistency everywhere.
The original convention
Which one of these should we use?
int4 is a data type, int32 isn't. c.h has DatumGetInt8, but no
DatumGetInt64; it also has DatumGetInt32 but no DatumGetInt4. fmgr has
PG_GETARG_INT32 et al. Inconsistency everywhere.
The C standard has things like int32_t, but technically there's no
guarantee
10 matches
Mail list logo
