On 16 Jul 2009, at 14:53, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On Thursday 16 July 2009 16:23:31 Grzegorz Jaskiewicz wrote:
On 16 Jul 2009, at 14:20, Tom Lane wrote:
Grzegorz Jaskiewicz <g...@pointblue.com.pl> writes:
oh, another thing.
stdbool is C99 standard feature.
We are still targeting C89, not C99.
Another reason not to depend on stdbool is that, so far as I can
see,
the standard does not promise that type _Bool has size = 1 byte.
We have to have that because of on-disk compatibility requirements.
I think the latter is easily fixable, or forceable to be one byte.
How do you plan to do that?
by casting it to 1 byte type such as char ?
I don't think anyone will add 3rd state to boolean in stdbool, at
least not any time soon :)
And it is pretty annoying, when your product also has its own BOOLean
defined...
Why C89, and not C99 ? Virtually all compilers for last 4 years have/
had C99 support.
Well, I think we want to run on systems that are older than 4 years,
too.
Sure, but that's probably less than 1% of all systems.
The 4 years was a guess, I think its much more than that.
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
