Re: [PATCH] Add crc32(text) & crc32(bytea)
От
Tom Lane
Тема
Re: [PATCH] Add crc32(text) & crc32(bytea)
Дата
Msg-id
2224670.1723128582@sss.pgh.pa.us
Ответ на
Re: [PATCH] Add crc32(text) & crc32(bytea) (Nathan Bossart)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
[PATCH] Add crc32(text) & crc32(bytea) Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com>
Re: [PATCH] Add crc32(text) & crc32(bytea) Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Re: [PATCH] Add crc32(text) & crc32(bytea) Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com>
Re: [PATCH] Add crc32(text) & crc32(bytea) Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Re: [PATCH] Add crc32(text) & crc32(bytea) Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com>
Re: [PATCH] Add crc32(text) & crc32(bytea) Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Re: [PATCH] Add crc32(text) & crc32(bytea) Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com>
Re: [PATCH] Add crc32(text) & crc32(bytea) Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Re: [PATCH] Add crc32(text) & crc32(bytea) Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Re: [PATCH] Add crc32(text) & crc32(bytea) Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Re: [PATCH] Add crc32(text) & crc32(bytea) Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [PATCH] Add crc32(text) & crc32(bytea) Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Re: [PATCH] Add crc32(text) & crc32(bytea) Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com>
Re: [PATCH] Add crc32(text) & crc32(bytea) Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Re: [PATCH] Add crc32(text) & crc32(bytea) Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com>
Re: [PATCH] Add crc32(text) & crc32(bytea) Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Re: [PATCH] Add crc32(text) & crc32(bytea) Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com>
Nathan Bossart writes: > On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 04:27:20PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> The correct return type of a CRC operation in general is some kind of exact >> numerical type. Just pick the best one that fits the result. I don't think >> bytea is appropriate. > That would leave us either "integer" or "bigint". "integer" is more > correct from a size perspective, but will result in negative values because > it is signed. "bigint" uses twice as many bytes but won't display any CRC > values as negative. bigint seems fine to me; we have used that in other places as a substitute for uint32, eg block numbers in contrib/pageinspect. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления