Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
Yes, regex patch adjustment, and I have not seen a patch which makes such adjustments. -- Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
