(new thread)
On Wed, Mar 18, 2026 at 04:17:40PM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 05:09:49PM -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Personally I object to the existence of the bits* types, to me they're just
>> noise over using the corresponding unsigned integer types. One more thing that
>> one has to just know what it means without there being any actual improved
>> type checking or such. It's not like using bits* would make it any easier to
>> make the underlying type a struct or such (which is different to
>> e.g. TransactionId, we could probably replace that with a struct without crazy
>> amounts of trouble).
>
> Yeah, I don't see why you'd prefer bits32 over uint32. If anything, uint32
> is probably less confusing because most hackers will have used it before.
> AFAICT the bits* types are a relic of the 80s, and there used to be other
> types like bool8 and word32, all of which were just uint* behind the
> scenes. Those were removed in 2004 by commit ca7a1f0c86. I assume bits*
> was left behind because it was still in use.
>
>> I think we should just rip the bits* types out and replace them with the
>> underlying types.
>
> +1. If there seems to be consensus, I'm happy to write the patch.
Well, in the process of seeing how bad the patch would look, I ended up
writing it. I used sed for most of this, and I tried to make all necessary
manual adjustments, but I may have missed a couple.
--
nathan
