Re: A Windows x64 ****t of PostgreSQL

Tom Lane wrote:
> To get a working WIN64 ****t it'd be necessary to go around and replace
> long with size_t/ssize_t in the places where it matters --- but there
> are not 450 of them, I don't think.  And I'd advise not touching the
> places that use int; that will just bloat the patch and make it harder
> to review, without actually buying any functionality

Plus - changing them all to 64-bit integers even for cases that will not 
ever require > 32-bit integers, is likely to be slower in all cases 
except for cases those that can be optimized to use only registers. I 
would use "int" by choice for any size that will never extend beyond 1 
Gb as it is likely to perform the best.

Cheers,
mark

-- 
Mark Mielke <mark@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>


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