Re: [RFC] Big Integer Support

On 14 Oct 2014, at 18:48, Lester Caine <lester@lsces.co.uk> wrote: > On 14/10/14 18:25, Stas Malyshev wrote: >> I don't see why you'd have two code paths. If you need bigints and they >> are not there, then you just fail, like with any extension your code >> needs and is not installed. If it's there, you just continue working. >> All the code existing now doesn't need bigints, and even in the future >> most code won't need it. But for some code it would just work like >> before, only with unlimited range now. > > 'bitinteger!' > I'm still waiting to see how we handle 'BIGINT' under this rfc since > that is something every database driver does need to handle. If you mean 64-bit ints, this RFC enables them to work on 32-bit too with exactly the same semantics. No more float overflow. On a 64-bit machine, they’re IS_LONG internally, and on 32-bit machines they’re IS_BIGINT, but the user doesn’t need to worry, they both act the same. Assuming I actually get round to updating the DB drivers. -- Andrea Faulds http://ajf.me/