On Fri, Dec 26, 2014 at 7:57 AM, David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> wrote: > 1. Do we need to keep the 128 byte aggregate state size for machines without > 128 bit ints? This has been reduced to 48 bytes in the patch, which is in > favour code being compiled with a compiler which has 128 bit ints. I kind > of think that we need to keep the 128 byte estimates for compilers that > don't support int128, but I'd like to hear any counter arguments.
I think you're referring to the estimated state size in pg_aggregate here, and I'd say it's probably not a big deal one way or the other. Presumably, at some point, 128-bit arithmetic will become common enough that we'll want to change that estimate, but I don't know whether we've reached that point or not. > 2. References to int16 meaning 16 bytes. I'm really in two minds about this, > it's quite nice to keep the natural flow, int4, int8, int16, but I can't > help think that this will confuse someone one day. I think it'll be a long > time before it confused anyone if we called it int128 instead, but I'm not > that excited about seeing it renamed either. I'd like to hear what others > have to say... Is there a chance that some sql standard in the distant > future will have HUGEINT and we might regret not getting the internal names > nailed down? Yeah, I think using int16 to mean 16-bytes will be confusing to someone almost immediately. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers