On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 08:57:42AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Marko Kreen <mark...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> How about: ".. %10" INT64_FORMAT " .. " ? > > > > Well, it won't work because unlike <inttypes.h>, Postgres *_FORMAT > > includes '%' in it. > > > > I guess that why <inttypes.h> does not do it... > > Hmm, I guess we could change that, but it would create a hazard for > thirty-party code that wants to be cross-version, and for > back-patching. We could work around that by doing something more > complex, like creating additional symbols, but I'm thinking it ain't > worth it just for this.
Changing existing definition is bad idea indeed. And long-term path should be to move to standard int types, so another custom definition seems counter-productive. (OTOH, the 2 int64 _FORMATs are the only formats we maintain.) In this case the simple approach would be to use 'long long': ".. %10lld ..", (long long)(..) At least ecpg code uses it freely, and nobody has complained, so I guess we don't have any platforms that do not have it. -- marko -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
