Re: [HACKERS] Size vs size_t

2017-03-20 Thread Daniel Gustafsson
> On 16 Mar 2017, at 23:20, Tom Lane wrote: > > Thomas Munro writes: >> Naive replacement in new files (present in master but not in 9.6) with >> the attached script, followed by a couple of manual corrections where >> Size was really an

Re: [HACKERS] Size vs size_t

2017-03-16 Thread Tom Lane
Thomas Munro writes: > Naive replacement in new files (present in master but not in 9.6) with > the attached script, followed by a couple of manual corrections where > Size was really an English word in a comment, gets the attached diff. In the case of mmgr/slab.c,

Re: [HACKERS] Size vs size_t

2017-03-16 Thread Thomas Munro
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-03-16 17:24:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Robert Haas writes: >> > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> >> On 2017-03-16 16:59:29 -0400, Robert Haas

Re: [HACKERS] Size vs size_t

2017-03-16 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund writes: > On 2017-03-16 17:24:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> The short answer to that is that "Size" predates the universal acceptance >> of size_t. If we were making these decisions today, or anytime since the >> early 2000s, we'd surely have just gone with

Re: [HACKERS] Size vs size_t

2017-03-16 Thread Andres Freund
On 2017-03-16 17:24:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: > > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > >> On 2017-03-16 16:59:29 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >>> I guess I assumed that we wouldn't have defined PG-specific types

Re: [HACKERS] Size vs size_t

2017-03-16 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2017-03-16 16:59:29 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >>> I guess I assumed that we wouldn't have defined PG-specific types if >>> we wanted to just use the OS-supplied ones. >>

Re: [HACKERS] Size vs size_t

2017-03-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-03-16 16:59:29 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Thomas Munro >> wrote: >> > Noticing that the assembled hackers don't seem to agree on $SUBJECT in >> >

Re: [HACKERS] Size vs size_t

2017-03-16 Thread Andres Freund
On 2017-03-16 16:59:29 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Thomas Munro > wrote: > > Noticing that the assembled hackers don't seem to agree on $SUBJECT in > > new patches, I decided to plot counts of lines matching \ and > >

Re: [HACKERS] Size vs size_t

2017-03-16 Thread Robert Haas
On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Thomas Munro wrote: > Noticing that the assembled hackers don't seem to agree on $SUBJECT in > new patches, I decided to plot counts of lines matching \ and > \ over time. After a very long run in the lead, size_t

[HACKERS] Size vs size_t

2017-03-16 Thread Thomas Munro
Hi, Noticing that the assembled hackers don't seem to agree on $SUBJECT in new patches, I decided to plot counts of lines matching \ and \ over time. After a very long run in the lead, size_t has recently been left in the dust by Size. -- Thomas Munro