Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2024 16:43:51 +0200
From: David Fetter <david@fetter.org>
To: Joel Jacobson <joel@compiler.org>
Cc: Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com>,
	pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add get_bytes() and set_bytes() functions
Message-ID: <ZrzCpy36C9w/X87C@fetter.org>
References: <CAJ7c6TPtOp6+kFX5QX3fH1SVr7v65uHr-7yEJ=GMGQi5uhGtcA@mail.gmail.com>
 <7882ebcf-4f1f-4f57-afeb-e1301dd6c9d3@app.fastmail.com>
 <CAJ7c6TNVbeNsxbbj1QJTcjdkHRmJUBfF=iv_dOMDAGxoKY9CyQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <a3531c01-f6a9-4c85-be86-8df932b78400@app.fastmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a3531c01-f6a9-4c85-be86-8df932b78400@app.fastmail.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZrzCpy36C9w/X87C%40fetter.org>
Precedence: bulk

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