On 2016-08-31 15:15:16 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 3:08 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > On August 31, 2016 3:06:23 PM PDT, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > > > >>In other painfully pedantic news, I should point out that > >>sizeof(size_t) isn't necessarily word size (the most generic > >>definition of word size for the architecture), contrary to my reading > >>of the 0002-* patch comments. I'm mostly talking thinking about x86_64 > >>here, of course. > > > > Uh? > > Sorry, I really should have not said anything. It is true that x86_64 > word size is sometimes reported as 16 and/or 32 bits , because of > legacy issues.
I think native word size describes the issue well enough. And, more importantly, I can't think of an equally short but more accurate description. I've pushed the patches. Thanks for the review. Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers