On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 10:22:51AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Qingqing Zhou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > There is a possible sequence like this:
>
> > ALIGNOF_LONG4
> > ALIGNOF_DOUBLE 8
> > MAXIMUM_ALIGNOF 8
>
> > vs.
>
> >
"William ZHANG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote >
> sizeof(int) maybe 8, but not 64.
> And the configure option `--enable-integer-datetimes' may affect the data
> layout.
>
Yes, typo. This has been checked by ControlFileData.enableIntTimes.
Regards,
Qingqing
---(end of broa
"Qingqing Zhou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > There are no platforms for which ALIGNOF_SHORT is different from 2.
> > I don't think there are any platforms we care about where ALIGNOF_INT
> > is different from 4. The
"Qingqing Zhou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> There is a possible sequence like this:
> ALIGNOF_LONG4
> ALIGNOF_DOUBLE 8
> MAXIMUM_ALIGNOF 8
> vs.
> ALIGNOF_LONG8
> ALIGNOF_DOUBLE 8
> MAXIMUM_ALIGNOF 8
> So we
"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> There are no platforms for which ALIGNOF_SHORT is different from 2.
> I don't think there are any platforms we care about where ALIGNOF_INT
> is different from 4. The cases of interest are ALIGNOF_DOUBLE,
> ALIGNOF_LONG,
"Qingqing Zhou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think all ALIGNOF macros should be checked.
There are no platforms for which ALIGNOF_SHORT is different from 2.
I don't think there are any platforms we care about where ALIGNOF_INT
is different from 4. The cases of interest are ALIGNOF_DOUBLE,
ALIG
""Jim C. Nasby"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> Yeah. It might be worth adding MAX_ALIGNOF to the set of configuration
>> data stored in pg_control, just to be sure you couldn't shoot yourself
>> in the foot that way.
>
> PLEASE. :)
>
I am coming up with a patch of it. I think all ALIGNOF macros
On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 07:05:28PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Qingqing Zhou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > ""Jim C. Nasby"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> >> If a database is created with a 64 bit version of initdb, would a 32bit
> >> backend be able to talk to it? Likewise, would a backend compiled
On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 17:27 -0500, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> If a database is created with a 64 bit version of initdb, would a 32bit
> backend be able to talk to it? Likewise, would a backend compiled by a
> different compiler be able to?
>
> If there was some kind of incompatability, would the backen
Jim C. Nasby wrote:
If a database is created with a 64 bit version of initdb, would a 32bit
backend be able to talk to it? Likewise, would a backend compiled by a
different compiler be able to?
Not in my experience at least from going 32 bit intel to 64bit opteron.
If there was some kind
"Qingqing Zhou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ""Jim C. Nasby"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> If a database is created with a 64 bit version of initdb, would a 32bit
>> backend be able to talk to it? Likewise, would a backend compiled by a
>> different compiler be able to?
> The key problem I believ
""Jim C. Nasby"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> If a database is created with a 64 bit version of initdb, would a 32bit
> backend be able to talk to it? Likewise, would a backend compiled by a
> different compiler be able to?
>
The key problem I believe is the serials of ALIGNOF macros. Especially f
If a database is created with a 64 bit version of initdb, would a 32bit
backend be able to talk to it? Likewise, would a backend compiled by a
different compiler be able to?
If there was some kind of incompatability, would the backend just refuse
to start, or would it start and start silently tras
13 matches
Mail list logo
