On 04/23/2016 06:33 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> 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;
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.
One other thought: even if this is safe for HEAD, I think we could
*not* back-patch it into 9.5, because it would amount to an ABI
break on Windows anywhere that pid_t is used in globally visible
structs or function signatures.  (Maybe there are no such places,
but I doubt it.)  So we'd need to go with the messy-cast solution
for 9.5.

It's not that messy. I'm inclined just to make minimal changed to pg_basebackup.c and be done with it. I don't think a compiler warning is worth doing more for.



Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to