Re: int8 sequences --- small implementation problem - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: int8 sequences --- small implementation problem
Date
Msg-id 19387.997811234@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Surviving transaction-ID wraparound, take 2  (Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Joe Conway" <joseph.conway@home.com> writes:
>> What I need is a way to pad the struct declaration so that it leaves
>> 8 bytes per int64 column, no matter what.  I thought of

> What if you defined int64 as a union made up of one "long int" member and
> one 8 byte char member, and then always refer to the "long int"?

Well, that'd remove the notational ugliness from the struct definition,
at the cost of adding it to the code that uses the struct.  I think I'd
prefer to uglify the struct and keep the code simple.  But it's a good
thought.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Neil Padgett
Date:
Subject: Re: int8 sequences --- small implementation problem
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: int8 sequences --- small implementation problem