| From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jeremy Drake" <pgsql(at)jdrake(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, "David Fetter" <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL Patches" <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Mark Dilger" <pgsql(at)markdilger(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: patch adding new regexp functions |
| Date: | 2007-03-21 12:51:38 |
| Message-ID: | 87k5xahi91.fsf@stark.xeocode.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> "Jeremy Drake" <pgsql(at)jdrake(dot)com> writes:
>
>> BTW, should I be calling get_typlenbyvalalign on TEXTOID or are there macros
>> for those also?
>
> Hardcoding -1 for typlen of varlenas is one of the few (the only?) magic
> constants used throughout the source code. I'm surprised there isn't a macro
> for it though.
>
> Do you need the alignment? If so I want to check the code against the packed
> varlena patch. Just in case.
Ah, it's just to construct an array, that's not a concern at all. And you're
detoasting the text data types before using or storing them so that's fine.
The only thing I would say is that this should maybe be a TextGetDatum() just
for code hygiene. It should be exactly equivalent though:
+ PointerGetDatum(matchctx->orig_str),
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-03-21 12:58:31 | Re: Question about the TODO, numerics, and division |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-03-21 12:34:12 | Re: patch adding new regexp functions |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-21 13:45:48 | Re: patch adding new regexp functions |
| Previous Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-03-21 12:34:12 | Re: patch adding new regexp functions |