* Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [001105 12:07]: > Larry Rosenman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Uh, we don't want to depend on gcc, do we? > > > Doesn't C99 *REQUIRE* long long? > > What difference does that make? It'll be a very long time before > Postgres can REQUIRE that people have a C99-compliant compiler. > Portability does not mean "we work great on just the newest and > spiffiest platforms"... I understand, but long long should start appearing in mainstream stuff now that the standard is out. I do understand your concern, however. I was just making a point that we should start seeing it. > > regards, tom lane -- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 972-414-9812 (voice) Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED] US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749
- Re: [HACKERS] Transaction ID wraparound: problem and prop... Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] Transaction ID wraparound: problem and... Vadim Mikheev
- Re: [HACKERS] Transaction ID wraparound: problem and prop... Hannu Krosing
- Re: [HACKERS] Transaction ID wraparound: problem and... Peter Eisentraut
- Re: [HACKERS] Transaction ID wraparound: problem... Larry Rosenman
- Re: [HACKERS] Transaction ID wraparound: pro... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Transaction ID wraparound:... Larry Rosenman
- Re: [HACKERS] Transaction ID wraparound: problem... Hannu Krosing
- Re: [HACKERS] Transaction ID wraparound: pro... Larry Rosenman
- Re: [HACKERS] Transaction ID wraparound: problem and... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Transaction ID wraparound: problem... Mark Hollomon
- Re: [HACKERS] Transaction ID wraparound: problem and prop... Bruce Momjian
- RE: [HACKERS] Transaction ID wraparound: problem and prop... Mikheev, Vadim