On 2015-01-01 03:00:50 +1300, David Rowley wrote: > > > 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. > > > > > hmm, I think it should be changed to int128 then. Pitty int4 was selected > as a name instead of int32 back in the day...
Note that the C datatype has been int32/int64 for a while now, it's just the SQL datatype and the names of its support functions. Given that, afaiu, we're talking about the C datatype it seems pretty clear that it should be named int128. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
