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 [1], 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

I've pushed the patches.  Thanks for the review.


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

Reply via email to