We no longer have a fallback for machines without working int64
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
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 Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
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 <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@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
David Fetter <david@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