On 19 June 2012 20:11, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Peter Eisentraut <pete...@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. > > I concur with Peter that TMTOWTDI is not the right way to do this. I > think we ought to get rid of int4 in code and use int32 everywhere. > >>> 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.) > > On this one, I agree with you.
Yeah. I find pgindent changes annoying when doing a git blame myself. Now, granted, you can mostly take care of that by having the tool ignore whitespace changes, but that doesn't always work perfectly, and I haven't been able to figure out a better way of managing that. -- Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
