On Sat, Sep 26, 2015 at 04:09:12PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> +/*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> + * datumSerialize
> + *
> + * Serialize a possibly-NULL datum into caller-provided storage.
> +void
> +datumSerialize(Datum value, bool isnull, bool typByVal, int typLen,
> + char **start_address)
> +{
> + int header;
> +
> + /* Write header word. */
> + if (isnull)
> + header = -2;
> + else if (typByVal)
> + header = -1;
> + else
> + header = datumGetSize(value, typByVal, typLen);
> + memcpy(*start_address, &header, sizeof(int));
> + *start_address += sizeof(int);
> +
> + /* If not null, write payload bytes. */
> + if (!isnull)
> + {
> + if (typByVal)
> + {
> + memcpy(*start_address, &value, sizeof(Datum));
> + *start_address += sizeof(Datum);
> + }
> + else
> + {
> + memcpy(*start_address, DatumGetPointer(value), header);
> + *start_address += header;
> + }
> + }
> +}
I see no mention in this thread of varatt_indirect, but I anticipated
datumSerialize() reacting to it the same way datumCopy() reacts. If
datumSerialize() can get away without doing so, why is that?
