From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: use of int4/int32 in C code |
Date: | 2012-06-19 13:47:38 |
Message-ID: | 11353.1340113658@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> What is the latest theory on using int4 vs. int32 in C code?
> (equivalently int2, int16)
I thought the general idea was to use int32 most places, but int4 in
catalog declarations. I don't think it's tremendously important if
somebody uses the other though.
> While we're at it, how do we feel about using C standard types like
> int32_t instead of (or initially in addition to) our own definitions?
Can't get very excited about this either. The most likely outcome of
a campaign to substitute the standard types is that back-patching would
become a truly painful activity. IMO, anything that is going to result
in tens of thousands of diffs had better have a more-than-cosmetic
reason. (That wouldn't apply if we only used int32_t in new code ...
but then, instead of two approved ways to do it, there would be three.
Which doesn't seem like it improves matters.)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2012-06-19 13:49:12 | Re: pgsql_fdw in contrib |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-06-19 13:33:57 | Re: Testing 9.2 in ~production environment |