[HACKERS] We no longer have a fallback for machines without working int64

2010-01-05 Thread Tom Lane
As pointed out here
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2010-01/msg00145.php
the current zic code doesn't cope gracefully with lack of working
int64.  Considering the trouble we've gone to throughout the rest
of the system to support such compilers, it's a bit annoying to
have this little detail break it.  On the other hand, it's unclear
that anybody still cares.  (Other than people running SCO Openserver,
for whom I have little sympathy anyway.)

Thoughts?  Is it worth expending any energy on?

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


Re: [HACKERS] We no longer have a fallback for machines without working int64

2010-01-05 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote:
 As pointed out here
 http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2010-01/msg00145.php
 the current zic code doesn't cope gracefully with lack of working
 int64.  Considering the trouble we've gone to throughout the rest
 of the system to support such compilers, it's a bit annoying to
 have this little detail break it.  On the other hand, it's unclear
 that anybody still cares.  (Other than people running SCO Openserver,
 for whom I have little sympathy anyway.)
 
 Thoughts?  Is it worth expending any energy on?

Yeah, I'd say this much:

#ifdef INT64_IS_BUSTED
#error unsupported platform
#endif

-- 
Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] We no longer have a fallback for machines without working int64

2010-01-05 Thread David Fetter
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 10:47:33AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
 As pointed out here
 http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2010-01/msg00145.php
 the current zic code doesn't cope gracefully with lack of working
 int64.  Considering the trouble we've gone to throughout the rest of
 the system to support such compilers, it's a bit annoying to have
 this little detail break it.  On the other hand, it's unclear that
 anybody still cares.  (Other than people running SCO Openserver, for
 whom I have little sympathy anyway.)
 
 Thoughts?

There was a use case for supporting non-working int64, but reality has
changed.

 Is it worth expending any energy on?

Not IMHO.

Cheers,
David.
-- 
David Fetter da...@fetter.org http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter  XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] We no longer have a fallback for machines without working int64

2010-01-05 Thread Tom Lane
David Fetter da...@fetter.org writes:
 On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 10:47:33AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
 As pointed out here
 http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2010-01/msg00145.php
 the current zic code doesn't cope gracefully with lack of working
 int64.  Considering the trouble we've gone to throughout the rest of
 the system to support such compilers, it's a bit annoying to have
 this little detail break it.  On the other hand, it's unclear that
 anybody still cares.  (Other than people running SCO Openserver, for
 whom I have little sympathy anyway.)

 There was a use case for supporting non-working int64, but reality has
 changed.

Yeah, maybe it's time to forget about that.  If so, we ought to change
configure to spit up if it can't find a working 64-bit type.  Failing
much later on with a strange message from zic isn't too acceptable.

I propose doing that in both HEAD and 8.4, since both those branches are
broken for someone with such a compiler.

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