Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>> I think that int32 etc are better choices at the C level because of
>> the well-established precedent for naming integer types after numbers
>> of bits in C code. I don't feel any strong urge to go around and
>> change the existing misusages, but if you want to, I won't object.
> Tom, I am wondering. If we don't change to int4/int8 internally now,
> will we ever do it?
As I thought I'd just made clear, I'm against standardizing on int4/int8
at the C level. The average C programmer would think that "int8" is
a one-byte type, not an eight-byte type. There's way too much history
behind that for us to swim against the tide. Having different naming
conventions at the C and SQL levels seems a better approach, especially
since it will exist to some extent anyway (int != integer, for
instance).
regards, tom lane
