On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
