Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On sn, 2010-10-31 at 22:41 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
>> * I renamed pg_[il]toa to pg_s(16|32|64)toa - I found the names
>> confusing. Not sure if its worth it.
> Given that there are widely established functions atoi() and atol(),
> naming the reverse itoa() and ltoa() makes a lot of sense. The changed
> versions read like "string to ASCII".
Yeah, and "s32" makes no sense at all. I think we should either leave
well enough alone (to avoid introducing a cross-version backpatch
hazard) or use pg_i32toa etc.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2010-11-02 14:21:39|
|Subject: Re: improved parallel make support |
|Previous:||From: Dimitri Fontaine||Date: 2010-11-02 13:38:27|
|Subject: Re: timestamp of the last replayed transaction|