Re: [HACKERS] PG_GETARG_GISTENTRY?

2017-09-18 Thread Tom Lane
Mark Dilger writes: > I have written a patch to fix these macro definitions across src/ and > contrib/. > Find the patch, attached. All regression tests pass on my Mac laptop. Pushed after some rebasing and some minor additional editorialization. The original point

Re: [HACKERS] PG_GETARG_GISTENTRY?

2017-04-24 Thread Noah Misch
On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 09:25:25AM -0700, Mark Dilger wrote: > Here is a small patch for the next open commitfest which handles a case > that Noah's commits 9d7726c2ba06b932f791f2d0cc5acf73cc0b4dca and > 3a0d473192b2045cbaf997df8437e7762d34f3ba apparently missed. The scope for those commits was

Re: [HACKERS] PG_GETARG_GISTENTRY?

2017-04-24 Thread Mark Dilger
> On Apr 5, 2017, at 1:27 PM, Mark Dilger wrote: > > >> On Apr 5, 2017, at 1:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> Mark Dilger writes: >>> I have written a patch to fix these macro definitions across src/ and >>> contrib/. >>>

Re: [HACKERS] PG_GETARG_GISTENTRY?

2017-04-05 Thread Mark Dilger
> On Apr 5, 2017, at 1:12 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Mark Dilger writes: >> I have written a patch to fix these macro definitions across src/ and >> contrib/. >> Find the patch, attached. All regression tests pass on my Mac laptop. > > Thanks for

Re: [HACKERS] PG_GETARG_GISTENTRY?

2017-04-05 Thread Tom Lane
Mark Dilger writes: > I have written a patch to fix these macro definitions across src/ and > contrib/. > Find the patch, attached. All regression tests pass on my Mac laptop. Thanks for doing the legwork on that. This seems a bit late for v10, especially since it's

Re: [HACKERS] PG_GETARG_GISTENTRY?

2017-04-05 Thread Mark Dilger
> On Apr 5, 2017, at 9:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > > Robert Haas writes: >> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> Andres Freund writes: we have a good number of '(GISTENTRY *)

Re: [HACKERS] PG_GETARG_GISTENTRY?

2017-04-05 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas writes: > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Andres Freund writes: >>> we have a good number of '(GISTENTRY *) PG_GETARG_POINTER(n)' in our >>> code - looks a bit better & shorter to have

Re: [HACKERS] PG_GETARG_GISTENTRY?

2017-04-05 Thread Robert Haas
On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund 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

Re: [HACKERS] PG_GETARG_GISTENTRY?

2017-03-29 Thread Tom Lane
Andres Freund 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 regards, tom

[HACKERS] PG_GETARG_GISTENTRY?

2017-03-29 Thread Andres Freund
Hi, 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). Arugments against? Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your