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.
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
Since if not having a current bytea value,
and just wanting to convert a bigint to bytea,
then one would need to construct an zeroed bytea
of the proper size first, to then use set_bytes().
And if just wanting to convert the entire bytea to a bigint,
then one would need to pass 0 as offset and the length
of the bytea as size.
Regards,
Joel
