Andrew Dunstan <> writes:
> On 04/23/2016 05:30 PM, Christian Ullrich wrote:
>> In this case, I would prefer this:
>> -typedef int pid_t;
>> +typedef intptr_t pid_t;
>> #endif

> That's a change that will have a pretty wide effect. Everything up to 
> now has been pretty low risk, but this worries me rather more. Maybe 
> it's safe, but I'd like to hear others' comments.

Yeah, it makes me a bit nervous too.  We know that most of the code is
agnostic as to the width of pid_t, because it works on Unixen where
pid_t is 64bit.  But I'm less sure about whether the Windows-specific
parts are equally flexible.

On the other hand, wouldn't you expect to get compiler warnings for
any code that does get affected?  The main hazard would be incorrect
printf format flags (cf 994f11257 for a recent example), and I'd
certainly expect any C compiler worth its salt to whine about
inconsistencies there.

                        regards, tom lane

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to