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.
The worst part of writing this patch has always been naming functions
and types. :)
Andreas