Re: Size vs size_t

On 2017-03-16 16:59:29 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Thomas Munro
> <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)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