Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> writes:
> On 30.07.25 18:06, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm giving the traditional names to the Pointer variants because it
>> turns out that way more places would have to change if we do it the
>> other way: in a rough count, about 50 versus about 1700. (This is
>> counting only the core backend.) Beyond that, though, bikeshedding
>> on the naming is welcome.
> In my patch, I just added the missing DatumGetPointer() calls, which
> seemed easy enough.
I had an earlier patch version that also did that, but it seemed
kind of verbose to me: adding "_D" is much shorter than adding
"DatumGetPointer()", and fewer parens seems good for readability.
One interesting thing I noted is that in some modules we already
were applying DatumGetPointer where needed (mostly, at least).
The patch I just posted in your other thread also simplifies those
cases to use the "_D" notation, which makes it longer than strictly
necessary. But I think consistency of notation is good.
> There is precedent for having two different functions, though, like
> att_addlength_pointer() and att_addlength_datum().
Yeah ... those two macros could stand to be cleaned up too, per
the notes in their comments. But I don't think we need to fix
that today.
regards, tom lane
