From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: int4 or int32 |
Date: | 2000-11-16 06:14:59 |
Message-ID: | 29968.974355299@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>> I think that int32 etc are better choices at the C level because of
>> the well-established precedent for naming integer types after numbers
>> of bits in C code. I don't feel any strong urge to go around and
>> change the existing misusages, but if you want to, I won't object.
> Tom, I am wondering. If we don't change to int4/int8 internally now,
> will we ever do it?
As I thought I'd just made clear, I'm against standardizing on int4/int8
at the C level. The average C programmer would think that "int8" is
a one-byte type, not an eight-byte type. There's way too much history
behind that for us to swim against the tide. Having different naming
conventions at the C and SQL levels seems a better approach, especially
since it will exist to some extent anyway (int != integer, for
instance).
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-11-16 06:16:28 | Re: int4 or int32 |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2000-11-16 06:06:42 | Re: int4 or int32 |