From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Jeremy Drake <pgsql(at)jdrake(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Mark Dilger <pgsql(at)markdilger(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: 64-bit API for large objects |
Date: | 2005-09-26 21:21:48 |
Message-ID: | 20050926212148.GU30974@pervasive.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 12:13:11PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> > On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 05:40:09PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> For that matter, we can't even guarantee that they work at all: not
> >> all platforms even *have* int64 types.
>
> > What platforms that PG supports don't have int64 arithmetic?
>
> We claim to build with any ANSI C compiler, and there is no requirement
> for a 64-bit type in ANSI C.
>
> The historical project policy is that we should still build without
> such a type, and everything should still work except that the effective
> bounds of bigint data correspond to int32 instead of int64 limits.
> I see no reason to back off that policy. It's not very much harder
> to do it right.
So what happens if you attempt to put a value greater than 2^32 into a
bigint on a non-int64 platform?
I would argue that by default we should not allow users to even create
bigints on any platform where bigint = int. And if the default is
overridden, we should still throw a warning.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2005-09-26 21:27:30 | Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort? |
Previous Message | Dann Corbit | 2005-09-26 21:13:02 | Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort? |