Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Peter Eisentrautpete...@gmx.net wrote:
On Friday 26 June 2009 12:07:24 Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
Included is a conceptual patch to use intptr_t. Comments are welcome.
After closer inspection, not having a win64 box
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 14:03:34 Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Peter Eisentrautpete...@gmx.net wrote:
On Friday 26 June 2009 12:07:24 Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
Included is a conceptual patch to use intptr_t. Comments are
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 16:10, Peter Eisentrautpete...@gmx.net wrote:
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 14:03:34 Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Peter Eisentrautpete...@gmx.net wrote:
On Friday 26 June 2009 12:07:24 Tsutomu Yamada
Magnus Hagander mag...@hagander.net writes:
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 16:10, Peter Eisentrautpete...@gmx.net wrote:
Well, there is nothing outright wrong with this patch, but without any
measurable effect, it is too early to commit it. At least I would like to
see
the Datum typedef to be
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 17:56:41 Tom Lane wrote:
The other thing that I would say is a non-negotiable minimum requirement
is that the patch include the necessary configure pushups so it does not
break machines without uintptr_t.
There is AC_TYPE_UINTPTR_T, so that should be easy.
--
Sent
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On Tuesday 04 August 2009 17:56:41 Tom Lane wrote:
The other thing that I would say is a non-negotiable minimum requirement
is that the patch include the necessary configure pushups so it does not
break machines without uintptr_t.
There is
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Peter Eisentrautpete...@gmx.net wrote:
On Friday 26 June 2009 12:07:24 Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
Included is a conceptual patch to use intptr_t. Comments are welcome.
After closer inspection, not having a win64 box available, I have my doubts
whether this patch
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 02:24, Dave Pagedp...@pgadmin.org wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:53 PM, Stephen Frostsfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Dave,
* Dave Page (dp...@pgadmin.org) wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Stephen Frostsfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Do you need access to a Win64 box?
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Magnus Hagandermag...@hagander.net wrote:
IIRC, there is no 64-bit support in VC++2005 Express. There is a
64-bit compiler in the SDK though, that can probably be made to work
with it. I think the official support for this (SDK compiler
integrated with VC++
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 10:35, Dave Pagedp...@pgadmin.org wrote:
On Sat, Jul 25, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Magnus Hagandermag...@hagander.net wrote:
IIRC, there is no 64-bit support in VC++2005 Express. There is a
64-bit compiler in the SDK though, that can probably be made to work
with it. I think
On Friday 26 June 2009 12:07:24 Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
Included is a conceptual patch to use intptr_t. Comments are welcome.
After closer inspection, not having a win64 box available, I have my doubts
whether this patch actually does anything. Foremost, it doesn't touch the
definition of the
Peter,
* Peter Eisentraut (pete...@gmx.net) wrote:
After closer inspection, not having a win64 box available, I have my doubts
whether this patch actually does anything. Foremost, it doesn't touch the
definition of the Datum type, which ought to be at the core of a change like
this.
Do
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Stephen Frostsfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Peter,
* Peter Eisentraut (pete...@gmx.net) wrote:
After closer inspection, not having a win64 box available, I have my doubts
whether this patch actually does anything. Foremost, it doesn't touch the
definition of the
Dave,
* Dave Page (dp...@pgadmin.org) wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Stephen Frostsfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Do you need access to a Win64 box? I can provide you access to a
Win64 system, which Dave Page and Magnus already have access to, if it
would be useful..
I haven't got
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:53 PM, Stephen Frostsfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Dave,
* Dave Page (dp...@pgadmin.org) wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:35 PM, Stephen Frostsfr...@snowman.net wrote:
Do you need access to a Win64 box? I can provide you access to a
Win64 system, which Dave Page and
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net wrote:
On Friday 26 June 2009 12:07:24 Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
Proposal: More portable way to support 64bit platforms
Short description:
Current PostgreSQL implementation has some portability issues to
support 64bit platforms: pointer calculations
Tsutomu Yamada tsut...@sraoss.co.jp writes:
Yes, I have read through the discusion but it seems somewhat faded
out. This is because no platform other than Windows has 64bit
pointer issues IMO. I think using intptr_t is cleaner and will bring
more portability. Moreover it will solve Windows
On Monday 29 June 2009 17:20:09 Tom Lane wrote:
The problem with this is that it's barely the tip of the iceberg.
One point I recall is that there are lots of places where %lu is
assumed to be the correct format to print Datums with.
Hmm. I tried this out. typedef Datum to be long long int
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On Monday 29 June 2009 17:20:09 Tom Lane wrote:
If it were
actually possible to support Win64 with only a couple of dozen lines
of changes, we would have done it long since.
Possibly, or everyone was too confused and didn't know where to start.
Well,
Proposal: More portable way to support 64bit platforms
Short description:
Current PostgreSQL implementation has some portability issues to
support 64bit platforms: pointer calculations using long is not
portable, for example on Windows x64 platform. We propose to use
intptr_t instead of long,
On Friday 26 June 2009 12:07:24 Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
Proposal: More portable way to support 64bit platforms
Short description:
Current PostgreSQL implementation has some portability issues to
support 64bit platforms: pointer calculations using long is not
portable, for example on Windows
21 matches
Mail list logo
