Re: Size vs size_t or, um, PgSize? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Daniel Gustafsson
Subject Re: Size vs size_t or, um, PgSize?
Date
Msg-id 38CFFB13-CB71-439F-8B9E-9330C696768D@yesql.se
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Size vs size_t or, um, PgSize?  (Yurii Rashkovskii <yrashk@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Size vs size_t or, um, PgSize?
List pgsql-hackers
> On 3 Jul 2023, at 21:14, Yurii Rashkovskii <yrashk@gmail.com> wrote:

> That being said, going ahead with the global renaming of Size to size_t will mostly eliminate this clash in, say,
fiveyears when old versions will be gone. At least it'll be fixed then. Otherwise, it'll never be fixed at all. To me,
havingthe problem gone in the future beats having the problem forever. 

I would also like all Size instances gone, but the cost during backpatching
will likely be very high.  There are ~1300 or so of them in the code, and
that's a lot of potential conflicts during the coming 5 years of backpatches.

--
Daniel Gustafsson




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Yurii Rashkovskii
Date:
Subject: Re: Size vs size_t or, um, PgSize?
Next
From: Yurii Rashkovskii
Date:
Subject: Re: Size vs size_t or, um, PgSize?