| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Use of "long" in incremental sort code |
| Date: | 2020-07-02 19:44:23 |
| Message-ID: | 864247.1593719063@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 12:39 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> mumble ssize_t mumble
> That's from POSIX, though. I imagine MSVC won't be happy (surprise!).
We've got quite a few uses of it already, so apparently it's fine.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | James Coleman | 2020-07-02 19:47:46 | Re: Use of "long" in incremental sort code |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2020-07-02 19:42:48 | Re: Use of "long" in incremental sort code |