Gavin Sherry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This may seem a little pedantic but I noticed a few places where we pass
> a datum to a macro which treats the datum as a pointer. This works now
> but might not in the future (if, say, Datum were to be 8 bytes).
Yeah, definitely something to fix. I think though that the cases
like this:
> ! PG_RETURN_TEXT_P(DatumGetPointer(result));
might as well just use PG_RETURN_DATUM instead of casting twice.
Was this just eyeball inspection or did you find a compiler that would
complain about this?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches
