Re: [PATCH] Add get_bytes() and set_bytes() functions

Hi,

> +1
>
> I wanted this myself many times.
>
> I wonder if get_bytes() and set_bytes() will behave differently
> on little-endian vs big-endian systems?
>
> If so, then I think it would be nice to enforce a consistent byte order
> (e.g., big-endian), to ensure consistent behavior across platforms.

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.

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.

-- 
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev