On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 01:18:38PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2019-07-16 16:11:44 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Yea, consistent naming seems like a strong requirement
> here. Additionally I think we should just provide a consistent set
> rather than what's needed just now. That'll just lead to people
> inventing their own again down the line.
Agreed. The first versions of pg_rewind in the tree have been using
copy_file_range(), which has been introduced in Linux.
> > - The str->integer conversion routines, which actually have very
> > similar characteristics to the strtol families as they remove trailing
> > whitespaces first, check for a sign, etc, except that they work only
> > on base 10.
>
> There's afaict neither a caller that needs the base argument at the
> moment, nor one in the tree previously. I'd argue for just making
> pg_strtouint64's API consistent.
Good point, indeed, this could be much more simplified. I have not
paid attention at that part.
> I'd probably also just use the implementation we have for signed
> integers (minus the relevant negation and overflow checks, obviously) -
> it's a lot faster, and I think there's value in keeping the
> implementations in sync.
You mean that it is much faster than the set of wrappers for strtol
than we have? Is that because we don't care about the base?
--
Michael
