Thread: Consolidate ItemPointer to Datum conversion functions

Instead of defining the same set of macros several times, define it once 
in an appropriate header file.  In passing, convert to inline functions.

On 06/02/2023 11:54, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Instead of defining the same set of macros several times, define it once
> in an appropriate header file.  In passing, convert to inline functions.

Looks good to me. Did you consider moving PG_GETARG_ITEMPOINTER and 
PG_RETURN_ITEMPOINTER, too? They're only used in tid.c, but for most 
datatypes, we define the PG_GETARG and PG_RETURN macros in the same 
header file as the the Datum conversion functions.

- Heikki

On 06.02.23 11:11, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 06/02/2023 11:54, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Instead of defining the same set of macros several times, define it once
>> in an appropriate header file.  In passing, convert to inline functions.
> 
> Looks good to me. Did you consider moving PG_GETARG_ITEMPOINTER and 
> PG_RETURN_ITEMPOINTER, too? They're only used in tid.c, but for most 
> datatypes, we define the PG_GETARG and PG_RETURN macros in the same 
> header file as the the Datum conversion functions.

Yeah that makes sense.  Here is an updated patch for that.

On 09.02.23 09:33, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 06.02.23 11:11, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> On 06/02/2023 11:54, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> Instead of defining the same set of macros several times, define it once
>>> in an appropriate header file.  In passing, convert to inline functions.
>>
>> Looks good to me. Did you consider moving PG_GETARG_ITEMPOINTER and 
>> PG_RETURN_ITEMPOINTER, too? They're only used in tid.c, but for most 
>> datatypes, we define the PG_GETARG and PG_RETURN macros in the same 
>> header file as the the Datum conversion functions.
> 
> Yeah that makes sense.  Here is an updated patch for that.

committed