On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 5:01 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2017-03-16 16:59:29 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 4:40 PM, Thomas Munro >> <thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> > Noticing that the assembled hackers don't seem to agree on $SUBJECT in >> > new patches, I decided to plot counts of lines matching \<Size\> and >> > \<size_t\> over time. After a very long run in the lead, size_t has >> > recently been left in the dust by Size. >> >> I guess I assumed that we wouldn't have defined PG-specific types if >> we wanted to just use the OS-supplied ones. > > I think, in this case, defining Size in the first place was a bad call > on behalf of the project. It gains us absolutely nothing, but makes it > harder to read for people that don't know PG all that well. I think we > should slowly phase out Size usage, at least in new code.
Well, I don't think we want to end up with a mix of Size and size_t in related code. That buys nobody anything. I'm fine with replacing Size with size_t if they are always equivalent, but there's no sense in having a jumble of styles. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers