Re: PG_GETARG_GISTENTRY?

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PG_GETARG_GISTENTRY?
Date: 2017-04-05 16:06:43
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZSGjrc0xf4m4pVLdGZchyF_od+-eZbHg0b7E5dQY7ncg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:54 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2017-04-05 16:06:52 Re: partitioned tables and contrib/sepgsql
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-04-05 16:05:48 Re: [PATCH] Remove unused argument in btree_xlog_split