Re: patch adding new regexp functions

Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Jeremy Drake wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> AFAIR, the reason there's no TextPGetDatum (and ditto for lots of other
>>> datatypes) is lack of obvious usefulness.

>> If you are asking why I have reason to convert text * to a Datum in cases
>> other than PG_RETURN_TEXT_P, it is used for calling text_substr functions
>> using DirectFunctionCallN. BTW, this usage of text_substr using
>> PointerGetDatum was copied from the pre-existing textregexsubstr function.

> Is there a follup patch based on this discussion?

Not at the moment. I suppose someone could run around and replace
PointerGetDatum by (exactly-equivalent) TextPGetDatum etc, but it seems
like mostly make-work. I definitely don't want to spend time on such
a project for 8.3.

Or were you speaking to the question of whether to adjust the regexp
patch to conform more nearly to the coding practices found elsewhere?
I agree with that, but I thought there was already a submitted patch
for it.

regards, tom lane