On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On September 27, 2017 9:06:49 PM PDT, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de>
> wrote:
>>On 2017-09-28 00:01:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Could we please not perpetuate the brain-dead "s" and "l" suffixes
>>> on these names? Given the lack of standardization as to how long
>>> "long" is, that's entirely unhelpful. I'd be fine with names like
>>> pg_ntoh16/32/64 and pg_hton16/32/64.
>>
>>Yes. I'd polled a few people and they leaned towards those. But I'm
>>perfectly happy to do that renaming.
>
> If somebody wants to argue for replacing hton/ntoh with {to,from}big or *be,
> now's the time.
OK. pg_hton16/32/64 and pg_ntoh16/32/64 are fine enough IMO.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
