Re: [HACKERS] PG_GETARG_GISTENTRY?

> On Apr 5, 2017, at 1:27 PM, Mark Dilger <hornschnorter@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Apr 5, 2017, at 1:12 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>
>> Mark Dilger <hornschnorter@gmail.com> writes:
>>> I have written a patch to fix these macro definitions across src/ and contrib/.
>>> Find the patch, attached.  All regression tests pass on my Mac laptop.
>>
>> Thanks for doing the legwork on that.
>
> You are welcome.
>
>> This seems a bit late for v10,
>> especially since it's only cosmetic
>
> Agreed.
>
>> , but please put it in the first
>> v11 commitfest.
>
> Done.
>
>>
>>> I don't find any inappropriate uses of _P where _PP would be called for.  I do,
>>> however, notice that some datatypes' functions are written to use PG_GETARG_*_P
>>> where PG_GETARG_*_PP might be more efficient.
>>
>> Yeah.  I think Noah did some work in that direction already, but I don't
>> believe he claimed to have caught everything.  Feel free to push further.
>
> Thanks for clarifying.
>

Here is a small patch for the next open commitfest which handles a case
that Noah's commits 9d7726c2ba06b932f791f2d0cc5acf73cc0b4dca and
3a0d473192b2045cbaf997df8437e7762d34f3ba apparently missed.

Noah, if you left this case out intentionally, sorry for the noise.  I did not
immediately see any reason not to follow your lead for this function.

Mark Dilger


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers