Re: use of int4/int32 in C code

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 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.

I concur with Peter that TMTOWTDI is not the right way to do this. I
think we ought to get rid of int4 in code and use int32 everywhere.

>> 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.)

On this one, I agree with you.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company