Re: [PATCH] Add get_bytes() and set_bytes() functions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Aleksander Alekseev
Subject Re: [PATCH] Add get_bytes() and set_bytes() functions
Date
Msg-id CAJ7c6TNVbeNsxbbj1QJTcjdkHRmJUBfF=iv_dOMDAGxoKY9CyQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Add get_bytes() and set_bytes() functions  ("Joel Jacobson" <joel@compiler.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

> +1
>
> I wanted this myself many times.
>
> I wonder if get_bytes() and set_bytes() will behave differently
> on little-endian vs big-endian systems?
>
> If so, then I think it would be nice to enforce a consistent byte order
> (e.g., big-endian), to ensure consistent behavior across platforms.

No, the returned value will not depend on the CPU endiness. Current
implementation uses big-endian / network order which in my humble
opinion is what most users would expect.

I believe we also need reverse(bytea) and repeat(bytea, integer)
functions e.g. for those who want little-endian. However I want to
propose them separately when we are done with this patch.

-- 
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Joel Jacobson"
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add get_bytes() and set_bytes() functions
Next
From: Bertrand Drouvot
Date:
Subject: define PG_REPLSLOT_DIR