On 14 Oct 2014, at 18:48, Lester Caine <[email protected]> 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/