On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 02:34:06PM +0200, Joel Jacobson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2024, at 13:31, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
> >> I wonder if get_bytes() and set_bytes() will behave differently
> >> on little-endian vs big-endian systems?
> > 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.
>
> Nice.
Indeed!
> I've reviewed and tested the patch.
> It looks straight-forward to me.
> I don't see any potential problems.
> I've marked it Ready for Committer.
>
> > 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.
>
> I agree those functions would be nice too.
>
> I also think it would be nice to provide these convenience functions:
> to_bytes(bigint) -> bytea
> from_bytes(bytea) -> bigint
Along with these, would it make sense to have other forms of these
that won't choke at 63 bits, e.g. NUMERIC or TEXT?
Best,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778
