Re: generic pseudotype IO functions?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: generic pseudotype IO functions?
Date: 2014-01-06 16:28:29
Message-ID: 4861.1389025709@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On 1/6/14, 10:29 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This will break some of the function sanity checks in opr_sanity,

> Then the tests can be changed.

That will weaken their ability to detect actual mistakes, no?

If there were a large benefit to merging the pseudotype I/O functions,
I'd think this would be acceptable; but merging them seems of mighty
marginal value.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-01-06 16:34:01 Re: Convert Datum* to char*
Previous Message Tom Lane 2014-01-06 16:22:46 Re: dynamic shared memory and locks