On 2015-04-02 10:42:58 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
I'm tempted to just prefix our limits with PG_ and define them
unconditionally, including appropriate casts to our types.
I don't have a better idea.
Will push
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On 2015-04-02 10:42:58 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
I'm tempted to just prefix our limits with PG_ and define them
unconditionally, including
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
I'm tempted to just prefix our limits with PG_ and define them
unconditionally, including appropriate casts to our types.
I don't have a better idea.
Will push that.
I'd appreciate it if you could do this soon. I
Hi,
On 2015-03-30 21:50:09 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
I'm too fried from the redeye back from pgconf nyc to do anything
complicated, but it seems quite possible to define int64/uint64 based
the stdint.h types if available. And generally a good idea too. I guess
I'll try that tomorrow; unless
On 2015-03-31 12:10:48 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
On 2015-03-30 21:50:09 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
I'm too fried from the redeye back from pgconf nyc to do anything
complicated, but it seems quite possible to define int64/uint64 based
the stdint.h
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
On 2015-03-30 21:50:09 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
I'm too fried from the redeye back from pgconf nyc to do anything
complicated, but it seems quite possible to define int64/uint64 based
the stdint.h types if available. And generally a good idea too. I
