On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 01:39:04PM +0100, Andreas Karlsson wrote:
> On 03/07/2015 07:18 PM, Petr Jelinek wrote:
>
> >What I am wondering is if those numeric_int16_* functions that also deal
> >with either the Int128AggState or NumericAggState should be renamed in
> >similar fashion.
>
> You mean something like numeric_poly_sum instead of numeric_int16_sum? I
> personally am not fond of either name. While numeric_int16_* incorrectly
> implies we have a int16 SQL type numeric_poly_* does not tell us that this
> is an optimized version which uses a smaller state.
Would it be simpler to write a separate patch to add an int16 SQL type
so that this implication is correct?
> The worst part of writing this patch has always been naming functions and
> types. :)
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate