| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: to_char, support for EEEE format |
| Date: | 2009-08-10 15:32:26 |
| Message-ID: | 3199.1249918346@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Brendan Jurd <direvus(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> 2009/8/11 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>> If we expose it at fmgr level it should definitely not return cstring.
>> However, I wasn't foreseeing doing that --- does the submitted patch
>> expose it?
> Sorry, I'm a little hazy on the terminology here. If by "expose it at
> fmgr level" you mean did I add it to pg_proc, then no, I didn't.
OK.
> The function is declared in builtins.h as "extern Datum
> numeric_out_sci(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS);", and called from formatting.c
> using the DirectFunctionCall arrangement.
If it's not meant to be in pg_proc, I wouldn't bother with using the V1
call protocol for it. "extern char *numeric_out_sci(Numeric x)" would
be sufficient, and less notation on both caller and callee sides.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Page | 2009-08-10 15:35:54 | Re: [PATCH] "could not reattach to shared memory" on Windows |
| Previous Message | Lawrence, Ramon | 2009-08-10 15:30:44 | Re: join removal |