Re: tsearch2api project

2007/10/17, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >> Surely this shouldn't be creating its own tsvector datatype?
>
> > I would to use only pg_catalog.tsvector. But dump contains CREATE TYPE
> > statement, and custom functions which prefere it, because path is:
> > public, pg_catalog :(. I didn't find any other solution with full
> > compatibility.
>
> I think we are really going to have to tell people to use the removets2
> script on their dumps in any case. I can't imagine that it'll be a good
> idea to have a bogus tsvector type in the system -- it'll mess things
> up going forward. I think probably the sort of solution you should be
> after is
> 1. load the compatibility module;
> 2. load dump that's been stripped of old tsearch2 stuff;
> 3. don't have to change anything else.
>

I agree.

@1 99% is done

I have question. Have I call directfunctioncallx interface for envelop fce?

If I don't modify any param from fce_info I can call directly wrapped function:

I used
#define ENVELOPE_FCE1(name,dest) \
Datum name (PG_FUNCTION_ARGS); \
PG_FUNCTION_INFO_V1(name); \
Datum \
name (PG_FUNCTION_ARGS) \
{ \
Datum arg0 = PG_GETARG_DATUM(0); \
return DirectFunctionCall1(dest, arg0); \
}

but I would
#define ENVELOPE_FCE(name,dest) \
Datum name (PG_FUNCTION_ARGS); \
PG_FUNCTION_INFO_V1(name); \
Datum \
name (PG_FUNCTION_ARGS) \
{ \
return (dest)(fceinfo); \
}

is it correct? or is better simple modify pg_proc? There is maybe
10-15 fce where is necessary do something

Pavel