| From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Add crc32(text) & crc32(bytea) |
| Date: | 2024-08-08 14:35:33 |
| Message-ID: | ZrTXtaEvAwnx7ap4@nathan |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 04:27:20PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 05.08.24 17:28, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> This looks pretty good to me. The only point that I think deserves more
>> discussion is the return type. Does bytea make the most sense here? Or
>> should we consider int/bigint?
>
> The correct return type of a CRC operation in general is some kind of exact
> numerical type. Just pick the best one that fits the result. I don't think
> bytea is appropriate.
That would leave us either "integer" or "bigint". "integer" is more
correct from a size perspective, but will result in negative values because
it is signed. "bigint" uses twice as many bytes but won't display any CRC
values as negative.
I guess we could also choose "numeric", which would set a more sustainable
precedent if we added functions for CRC-64...
--
nathan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-08-08 14:49:42 | Re: [PATCH] Add crc32(text) & crc32(bytea) |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2024-08-08 14:27:20 | Re: [PATCH] Add crc32(text) & crc32(bytea) |