Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Jeremy Drake wrote:
> >> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> AFAIR, the reason there's no TextPGetDatum (and ditto for lots of other
> >>> datatypes) is lack of obvious usefulness.
> >> If you are asking why I have reason to convert text * to a Datum in cases
> >> other than PG_RETURN_TEXT_P, it is used for calling text_substr functions
> >> using DirectFunctionCallN.  BTW, this usage of text_substr using
> >> PointerGetDatum was copied from the pre-existing textregexsubstr function.
> > Is there a follup patch based on this discussion?
> Not at the moment.  I suppose someone could run around and replace
> PointerGetDatum by (exactly-equivalent) TextPGetDatum etc, but it seems
> like mostly make-work.  I definitely don't want to spend time on such
> a project for 8.3.
> Or were you speaking to the question of whether to adjust the regexp
> patch to conform more nearly to the coding practices found elsewhere?
> I agree with that, but I thought there was already a submitted patch
> for it.

Yes, regex patch adjustment, and I have not seen a patch which makes
such adjustments.

  Bruce Momjian  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

Reply via email to