On 12/31/14, 8:13 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2015-01-01 03:00:50 +1300, David Rowley wrote:
2. References to int16 meaning 16 bytes. I'm really in two minds about
this,
it's quite nice to keep the natural flow, int4, int8, int16, but I can't
help think that this will confuse someone one day. I think it'll be a
long
time before it confused anyone if we called it int128 instead, but I'm
not
that excited about seeing it renamed either. I'd like to hear what others
have to say... Is there a chance that some sql standard in the distant
future will have HUGEINT and we might regret not getting the internal
names
nailed down?
Yeah, I think using int16 to mean 16-bytes will be confusing to
someone almost immediately.
hmm, I think it should be changed to int128 then. Pitty int4 was selected
as a name instead of int32 back in the day...
Note that the C datatype has been int32/int64 for a while now, it's just
the SQL datatype and the names of its support functions. Given that,
afaiu, we're talking about the C datatype it seems pretty clear that it
should be named int128.
Should we start down this road with SQL too, by creating int32, 64 and 128 (if
needed?), and changing docs as needed?
Presumably that would be best as a separate patch...
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
