Re: PG_GETARG_GISTENTRY? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: PG_GETARG_GISTENTRY?
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZSGjrc0xf4m4pVLdGZchyF_od+-eZbHg0b7E5dQY7ncg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PG_GETARG_GISTENTRY?  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>> we have a good number of '(GISTENTRY *) PG_GETARG_POINTER(n)' in our
>> code - looks a bit better & shorter to have PG_GETARG_GISTENTRY(n).
>
> Should be PG_GETARG_GISTENTRY_P to match existing conventions,
> otherwise +1

I have never quite understood why some of those macros have _P or _PP
on the end and others don't.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove unused argument in btree_xlog_split
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql