Re: Latest on CITEXT 2.0

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com>
Cc: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Latest on CITEXT 2.0
Date: 2008-06-26 16:19:56
Message-ID: 20080626161956.GC4396@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

David E. Wheeler wrote:

> The operator functions *do* use PG_FREE_IF_COPY(). So I'm guessing it's
> these functions you're talking about. However, my implementation just
> looks like this:
>
> Datum citext_ne (PG_FUNCTION_ARGS) {
> // Fast path for different-length inputs. Okay for canonical
> equivalence?
> if (VARSIZE(PG_GETARG_TEXT_P(0)) != VARSIZE(PG_GETARG_TEXT_P(1)))
> PG_RETURN_BOOL( 1 );
> PG_RETURN_BOOL( citextcmp( PG_ARGS ) != 0 );
> }

PG_GETARG_TEXT_P can detoast the datum, which creates a copy.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2008-06-26 16:29:44 Re: [0/4] Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches
Previous Message David E. Wheeler 2008-06-26 16:02:56 Re: Latest on CITEXT 2.0