On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 01:39:04PM +0100, Andreas Karlsson wrote: > On 03/07/2015 07:18 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote: > > >What I am wondering is if those numeric_int16_* functions that also deal > >with either the Int128AggState or NumericAggState should be renamed in > >similar fashion. > > You mean something like numeric_poly_sum instead of numeric_int16_sum? I > personally am not fond of either name. While numeric_int16_* incorrectly > implies we have a int16 SQL type numeric_poly_* does not tell us that this > is an optimized version which uses a smaller state.
Would it be simpler to write a separate patch to add an int16 SQL type so that this implication is correct? > The worst part of writing this patch has always been naming functions and > types. :) Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
