On 09/03/15 13:39, 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.
Yes that's what I mean, since the int16 in the name is misleading given
that in at least some builds the int16 won't be used. You could always
have numeric function, int16 function and the poly function which
decides between them but that's probably overkill.
>
> The worst part of writing this patch has always been naming functions
> and types. :)
Naming is hard :)
-- Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services