On 09/03/15 18:39, David Fetter wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 01:39:04PM +0100, 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.
>
> Would it be simpler to write a separate patch to add an int16 SQL type
> so that this implication is correct?
>
No, because then you'd need to emulate the type on platforms where it
does not exist and the patch would be several times more complex for no
useful reason.
-- Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services
