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 about adding a wrapper for G
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 wr
> 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/.
>>> Find the patch, attached. All regression tests pass on my Mac laptop.
>>
> 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 doing the legwork on that.
You are welcome.
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 only cosmetic, but please p
> 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 *) PG_GETARG_POINTER(n)' in our
code - looks a bit better & shorter to have PG_GETARG_GISTENTRY(n
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 PG_GETARG_GISTENTRY(n).
>> Should be PG_GETARG_GISTENTRY_P to match existing
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 match existing conventions,
> otherwise +
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 lane
--
Sent via
