On 2017-03-16 16:59:29 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Thomas Munro > <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > Noticing that the assembled hackers don't seem to agree on $SUBJECT in > > new patches, I decided to plot counts of lines matching \<Size\> and > > \<size_t\> over time. After a very long run in the lead, size_t has > > recently been left in the dust by Size. > > I guess I assumed that we wouldn't have defined PG-specific types if > we wanted to just use the OS-supplied ones.
I think, in this case, defining Size in the first place was a bad call on behalf of the project. It gains us absolutely nothing, but makes it harder to read for people that don't know PG all that well. I think we should slowly phase out Size usage, at least in new code. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
