On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 02:34:06PM +0200, Joel Jacobson wrote: > On Wed, Aug 14, 2024, at 13:31, Aleksander Alekseev wrote: > >> I wonder if get_bytes() and set_bytes() will behave differently > >> on little-endian vs big-endian systems? > > No, the returned value will not depend on the CPU endiness. Current > > implementation uses big-endian / network order which in my humble > > opinion is what most users would expect. > > Nice.
Indeed! > I've reviewed and tested the patch. > It looks straight-forward to me. > I don't see any potential problems. > I've marked it Ready for Committer. > > > I believe we also need reverse(bytea) and repeat(bytea, integer) > > functions e.g. for those who want little-endian. However I want to > > propose them separately when we are done with this patch. > > I agree those functions would be nice too. > > I also think it would be nice to provide these convenience functions: > to_bytes(bigint) -> bytea > from_bytes(bytea) -> bigint Along with these, would it make sense to have other forms of these that won't choke at 63 bits, e.g. NUMERIC or TEXT? Best, David. -- David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778
