Re: [PATCH] Custom code int(32|64) => text conversions out of performance reasons

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> On sn, 2010-10-31 at 22:41 +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
>> * I renamed pg_[il]toa to pg_s(16|32|64)toa - I found the names
>> confusing. Not sure if its worth it.

> Given that there are widely established functions atoi() and atol(),
> naming the reverse itoa() and ltoa() makes a lot of sense.  The changed
> versions read like "string to ASCII".

Yeah, and "s32" makes no sense at all.  I think we should either leave
well enough alone (to avoid introducing a cross-version backpatch
hazard) or use pg_i32toa etc.

			regards, tom lane