Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2017-04-05 09:43:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, I was just thinking about that. The core problem though is that
>> we need the "bool" fields in the system catalog structs (or anyplace
>> else that it represents an on-disk bool datum) to be understood as
>> being 1 byte wide. I do not think we can assume that that's true of
>> every compiler's _Bool type. So we'd need some workaround for that.
>> There are probably other places such as isnull arrays where it'd be
>> wise to force the width to be 1 byte.
> I wonder if there's any compiler that has _Bool/stdbool.h where it's not
> 1 byte sized. It's definitely not guaranteed by the standard.
Hm. I'd supposed that it'd be pretty common to make _Bool be int-sized.
If it is char-sized almost everywhere, we could create a policy of
using stdbool.h unless configure sees that _Bool is not char-sized.
OTOH, that doesn't improve our existing situation that we have
platform-dependent semantics around "bool" (eg, what happens when
a non-char-sized value is assigned). It would just change which
one is the majority case, and not in a very safe direction :-(
>> In any case, that's a research project that's not getting done for v10.
> Agreed.
Yeah, it's off-topic for right now.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
