Re: int4 or int32

> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> >> I think that int32 etc are better choices at the C level because of
> >> the well-established precedent for naming integer types after numbers
> >> of bits in C code. I don't feel any strong urge to go around and
> >> change the existing misusages, but if you want to, I won't object.
>
> > Tom, I am wondering. If we don't change to int4/int8 internally now,
> > will we ever do it?
>
> As I thought I'd just made clear, I'm against standardizing on int4/int8
> at the C level. The average C programmer would think that "int8" is
> a one-byte type, not an eight-byte type. There's way too much history
> behind that for us to swim against the tide. Having different naming
> conventions at the C and SQL levels seems a better approach, especially
> since it will exist to some extent anyway (int != integer, for
> instance).

OK.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026