Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > int64_t is a C99 data type that hasn't existed prior to recent > versions of gcc, but is quite valid/correct. I'd think that int64_t > support should be fudged on platforms where in64_t isn't defined as > long long.
We have int64 defined (and well tested) already; I see no reason to muck with it. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org