Re: [PATCH] Add crc32(text) & crc32(bytea)

On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 04:27:20PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 05.08.24 17:28, Nathan Bossart wrote:
>> This looks pretty good to me.  The only point that I think deserves more
>> discussion is the return type.  Does bytea make the most sense here?  Or
>> should we consider int/bigint?
> 
> The correct return type of a CRC operation in general is some kind of exact
> numerical type.  Just pick the best one that fits the result.  I don't think
> bytea is appropriate.

That would leave us either "integer" or "bigint".  "integer" is more
correct from a size perspective, but will result in negative values because
it is signed.  "bigint" uses twice as many bytes but won't display any CRC
values as negative.

I guess we could also choose "numeric", which would set a more sustainable
precedent if we added functions for CRC-64...

-- 
nathan