On Thu, Aug 10, 2017 at 10:36 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Yeah ... however, if that's there, then there's something wrong with
> Ashutosh's explanation, because that means we *are* building with
> _USE_32BIT_TIME_T in 32-bit builds. It's just getting there in a
> roundabout way. (Or, alternatively, this code is somehow not doing
> anything at all.)
I don't follow.
>> The trouble with that is that _USE_32BIT_TIME_T also affects how
>> PostgreSQL code compiles.
> Really? We try to avoid touching "time_t" at all in most of the code.
> I bet that we could drop the above-cited code, and compile only plperl
> with _USE_32BIT_TIME_T, taken (if present) from the Perl flags, and
> it'd be fine. At least, that's my first instinct for what to try.
Oh. Well, if that's an OK thing to do, then sure, wfm. I guess we've
got pg_time_t plastered all over the backend but that's not actually
time_t under the hood, so it's fine. I do see time_t being used in
frontend code, but that won't matter for this.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: