On 2015-01-27 08:21:57 +0100, Andreas Karlsson wrote: > On 01/23/2015 02:58 AM, Petr Jelinek wrote: > >On 23/01/15 00:40, Andreas Karlsson wrote: > >>- Renamed some things from int12 to int128, there are still some places > >>with int16 which I am not sure what to do with. > > > >I'd vote for renaming them to int128 too, there is enough C functions > >that user int16 for 16bit integer that this is going to be confusing > >otherwise. > > Do you also think the SQL functions should be named numeric_int128_sum, > numeric_int128_avg, etc?
I'm pretty sure we already decided upthread that the SQL interface is going to keep usint int4/8 and by extension int16. 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
