Re: Proposal: More portable way to support 64bit platforms

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tsutomu Yamada <tsutomu(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Proposal: More portable way to support 64bit platforms
Date: 2009-08-04 14:16:38
Message-ID: 9837222c0908040716u48294fcelb056cf7277717ffb@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 16:10, Peter Eisentraut<peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 August 2009 14:03:34 Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>  > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Peter Eisentraut<peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>>  > > On Friday 26 June 2009 12:07:24 Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
>>  > >> Included is a conceptual patch to use intptr_t. Comments are welcome.
>>  > >
>>  > > After closer inspection, not having a win64 box available, I have my
>>  > > doubts whether this patch actually does anything. Foremost, it doesn't
>>  > > touch the definition of the Datum type, which ought to be at the core
>>  > > of a change like this.
>>  > >
>>  > > Now I see that you call this a "conceptual patch". Perhaps we should
>>  > > wait until you have developed it into a complete patch?
>>  >
>>  > Is there any reason to consider this patch any further during this
>>  > CommitFest?  It seems that this is a long way from being ready to go.
>>
>> I'm sorry for delaying response.
>>
>> This patch is needed as a base of the fix for Windows x64 in the future.
>>
>> There are still a lot of corrections necessary for Win x64.
>> (typedef Datum, shared buffer, "%lu" messages, headers, build scripts, ...)
>> We are trying these now, and want to offer the result to the next Commit
>> Fest.
>>
>> Because we are glad if this pointer patch is confirmed at the early stage,
>> we submitted patch to this Commit Fest.
>
> Well, there is nothing outright wrong with this patch, but without any
> measurable effect, it is too early to commit it.  At least I would like to see
> the Datum typedef to be changed to use intptr_t and the fallout from that
> cleaned up.

+1.

I think it's good that it was posted for a quick review of the general
idea, but I agree that it's too early to commit it until we can see
some actual benefit. And I expect the Datum changes to be much larger
than this, so we can just review/apply them as one when the time
comes.

--
Magnus Hagander
Self: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2009-08-04 14:16:45 Re: doing %-expansion in plpgsql RAISE USING
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2009-08-04 14:14:46 Re: bytea vs. pg_dump