Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos
Date
Msg-id 1a0cc462-5619-47ef-bad9-06b96b2f277f@eisentraut.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 18.04.24 02:31, Thomas Munro wrote:
> For limits, why do we have this:
> 
> - * stdint.h limits aren't guaranteed to have compatible types with our fixed
> - * width types. So just define our own.
> 
> ?  I mean, how could they not have compatible types?

The commit for this was 62e2a8dc2c7 and the thread was 
<https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/E1YatAv-0007cu-KW%40gemulon.postgresql.org>. 
  The problem was that something like

     snprintf(bufm, sizeof(bufm), INT64_FORMAT, SEQ_MINVALUE);

could issue a warning if, say, INT64_FORMAT, which refers to our own 
int64, is based on long int, but SEQ_MINVALUE, which was then INT64_MIN, 
which refers to int64_t, which could be long long int.

So this is correct.  If we introduce the use of int64_t, then you need 
to be consistent still:

int64, PG_INT64_MIN, PG_INT64_MAX, INT64_FORMAT

int64_t, INT64_MIN, INT64_MAX, PRId64



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: shveta malik
Date:
Subject: Re: promotion related handling in pg_sync_replication_slots()
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Idea Feedback: psql \h misses -> Offers Links?