Andres Freund <> writes:
> On 2017-03-16 17:24:17 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The short answer to that is that "Size" predates the universal acceptance
>> of size_t.  If we were making these decisions today, or anytime since the
>> early 2000s, we'd surely have just gone with size_t.  But it wasn't a
>> realistic option in the 90s.

> Just out of curiosity I checked when we switched to backing Size with
> size_t:
> 1998 - 0ad5d2a3a886e72b429ea2b84bfcb36c0680f84d

Yeah.  We inherited the previous definition (as "unsigned int") from
Berkeley.  I wasn't involved then, of course, but I follow their reasoning
perfectly because I remember fighting the same type of portability battles
with libjpeg in the early 90s.  "size_t" was invented by the ANSI C
committee (hence, 1989 or 1990) and had only very haphazard penetration
until the late 90s.  If you wanted to write portable code you couldn't
depend on it.

                        regards, tom lane

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to