On 09/03/15 18:39, David Fetter wrote:
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?
No, because then you'd need to emulate the type on platforms where it
does not exist and the patch would be several times more complex for no
useful reason.
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
