Re: Size vs size_t or, um, PgSize?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Daniel Gustafsson
Тема Re: Size vs size_t or, um, PgSize?
Дата
Msg-id 38CFFB13-CB71-439F-8B9E-9330C696768D@yesql.se
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Size vs size_t or, um, PgSize?  (Yurii Rashkovskii <yrashk@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: Size vs size_t or, um, PgSize?  (Yurii Rashkovskii <yrashk@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
> On 3 Jul 2023, at 21:14, Yurii Rashkovskii <yrashk@gmail.com> wrote:

> That being said, going ahead with the global renaming of Size to size_t will mostly eliminate this clash in, say,
fiveyears when old versions will be gone. At least it'll be fixed then. Otherwise, it'll never be fixed at all. To me,
havingthe problem gone in the future beats having the problem forever. 

I would also like all Size instances gone, but the cost during backpatching
will likely be very high.  There are ~1300 or so of them in the code, and
that's a lot of potential conflicts during the coming 5 years of backpatches.

--
Daniel Gustafsson




В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Yurii Rashkovskii
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Size vs size_t or, um, PgSize?
Следующее
От: Yurii Rashkovskii
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Size vs size_t or, um, PgSize?