Re: Size vs size_t

On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> 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.

Well, I don't think we want to end up with a mix of Size and size_t in
related code. That buys nobody anything. I'm fine with replacing
Size with size_t if they are always equivalent, but there's no sense
in having a jumble of styles.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company