Re: use of int4/int32 in C code
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: use of int4/int32 in C code |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 11353.1340113658@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | use of int4/int32 in C code (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: use of int4/int32 in C code
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: