Re: use of int4/int32 in C code

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: use of int4/int32 in C code
Date: 2012-06-19 13:47:38
Message-ID: 11353.1340113658@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> What is the latest theory on using int4 vs. int32 in C code?
> (equivalently int2, int16)

I thought the general idea was to use int32 most places, but int4 in
catalog declarations. I don't think it's tremendously important if
somebody uses the other though.

> While we're at it, how do we feel about using C standard types like
> int32_t instead of (or initially in addition to) our own definitions?

Can't get very excited about this either. The most likely outcome of
a campaign to substitute the standard types is that back-patching would
become a truly painful activity. IMO, anything that is going to result
in tens of thousands of diffs had better have a more-than-cosmetic
reason. (That wouldn't apply if we only used int32_t in new code ...
but then, instead of two approved ways to do it, there would be three.
Which doesn't seem like it improves matters.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Merlin Moncure 2012-06-19 13:49:12 Re: pgsql_fdw in contrib
Previous Message Tom Lane 2012-06-19 13:33:57 Re: Testing 9.2 in ~production environment