Re: PG_GETARG_TEXT_PP vs PG_GETARG_TEXT_P

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Markur Sens <markursens(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PG_GETARG_TEXT_PP vs PG_GETARG_TEXT_P
Date: 2022-06-11 21:25:27
Message-ID: 3109893.1654982727@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Markur Sens <markursens(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On 12 Jun 2022, at 12:06 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> PG_GETARG_TEXT_PP is preferred in new code since it can avoid one
>> step of palloc-and-copy-the-value; the only real downside is you
>> have to use the appropriate macros to get the string's start address
>> and length.

> Is it worth adding a relevant comment in the documentation section?

It is documented in the source code where these macros are defined
(fmgr.h).

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Rino Mardo 2022-06-12 00:20:31 Re: newbie db design question
Previous Message Markur Sens 2022-06-11 21:14:33 Re: PG_GETARG_TEXT_PP vs PG_GETARG_TEXT_P