On 2017-09-28 14:23:45 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > On September 27, 2017 9:06:49 PM PDT, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de>
> > wrote:
> >>On 2017-09-28 00:01:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> Could we please not perpetuate the brain-dead "s" and "l" suffixes
> >>> on these names? Given the lack of standardization as to how long
> >>> "long" is, that's entirely unhelpful. I'd be fine with names like
> >>> pg_ntoh16/32/64 and pg_hton16/32/64.
> >>
> >>Yes. I'd polled a few people and they leaned towards those. But I'm
> >>perfectly happy to do that renaming.
> >
> > If somebody wants to argue for replacing hton/ntoh with {to,from}big or
> > *be, now's the time.
>
> OK. pg_hton16/32/64 and pg_ntoh16/32/64 are fine enough IMO.
Does anybody have an opinion on whether we'll want to convert examples
like testlibpq3.c (included in libpq.sgml) too? I'm inclined not to,
because currently using pg_bswap.h requires c.h presence (just for a few
typedefs and configure data). There's also not really a pressing need.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
