Re: [HACKERS] Renaming PG_GETARG functions (was Re: PG_GETARG_GISTENTRY?) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Mark Dilger
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Renaming PG_GETARG functions (was Re: PG_GETARG_GISTENTRY?)
Date
Msg-id DC665FAC-B869-4F0D-8737-B1ED1D5582F6@gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to [HACKERS] Renaming PG_GETARG functions (was Re: PG_GETARG_GISTENTRY?)  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
> On Sep 12, 2017, at 1:07 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> 
> [ changing subject line to possibly draw more attention ]
> 
> Mark Dilger <hornschnorter@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On Apr 5, 2017, at 9:23 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> In short, if you are supposed to write
>>>     FOO  *val = PG_GETARG_FOO(n);
>>> then the macro designer blew it, because the name implies that it
>>> returns FOO, not pointer to FOO.  This should be
>>>     FOO  *val = PG_GETARG_FOO_P(n);
> 
>> I have written a patch to fix these macro definitions across src/ and
>> contrib/.
> 

Thanks, Tom, for reviewing my patch.




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

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Automatic testing of patches in commit fest
Next
From: Daniel Gustafsson
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Patches that don't apply or don't compile: 2017-09-12