Re: [HACKERS] Renaming PG_GETARG functions (was Re: PG_GETARG_GISTENTRY?)

2017-09-15 Thread Daniel Gustafsson
> On 12 Sep 2017, at 22:07, Tom Lane wrote: > > [ changing subject line to possibly draw more attention ] > > Mark Dilger writes: >>> On Apr 5, 2017, at 9:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> In short, if you are supposed to write >>> FOO *val = PG_GETARG_FOO(n); >>> then the macro designer blew it

Re: [HACKERS] Renaming PG_GETARG functions (was Re: PG_GETARG_GISTENTRY?)

2017-09-12 Thread Mark Dilger
> On Sep 12, 2017, at 1:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > > [ changing subject line to possibly draw more attention ] > > Mark Dilger writes: >>> On Apr 5, 2017, at 9:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >>> In short, if you are supposed to write >>> FOO *val = PG_GETARG_FOO(n); >>> then the macro designer ble

[HACKERS] Renaming PG_GETARG functions (was Re: PG_GETARG_GISTENTRY?)

2017-09-12 Thread Tom Lane
[ changing subject line to possibly draw more attention ] Mark Dilger writes: >> On Apr 5, 2017, at 9:23 AM, Tom Lane wrote: >> In short, if you are supposed to write >> FOO *val = PG_GETARG_FOO(n); >> then the macro designer blew it, because the name implies that it >> returns FOO, not po