Re: PG_GETARG_TEXT_PP vs PG_GETARG_TEXT_P

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Markur Sens
Тема Re: PG_GETARG_TEXT_PP vs PG_GETARG_TEXT_P
Дата
Msg-id 5C935137-83B0-4E61-BBEB-2D9D2840B8E9@gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: PG_GETARG_TEXT_PP vs PG_GETARG_TEXT_P  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: PG_GETARG_TEXT_PP vs PG_GETARG_TEXT_P
Список pgsql-general

> On 12 Jun 2022, at 12:06 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Markur Sens <markursens@gmail.com> writes:
>> In the “Extending SQL” chapter I see both of these forms are mentioned.
>> But can’t find info about when to use which one.
>
> PG_GETARG_TEXT_P returns a traditional-format, 4-byte-header value.
>
> PG_GETARG_TEXT_PP is allowed to return either that or a 1-byte-header
> value, in case that's what the input is.
>
> PG_GETARG_TEXT_PP is preferred in new code since it can avoid one
> step of palloc-and-copy-the-value; the only real downside is you
> have to use the appropriate macros to get the string's start address
> and length.
>
>             regards, tom lane

Ah Thanks. I wouldn’t have guessed that.
And I don’t see this mentioned in the header files either.

Is it worth adding a relevant comment in the documentation section?




В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: PG_GETARG_TEXT_PP vs PG_GETARG_TEXT_P
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: PG_GETARG_TEXT_PP vs PG_GETARG_TEXT_P