public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]>
To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
To: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
To: pgsql-hackers <[email protected]>
To: David Geier <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Reduce build times of pg_trgm GIN indexes
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2026 00:11:51 +0300
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<CAEze2WiUL9idZBbuUN+MuWqr6DcPr_-C91E9MTx=H62Xx5fHaQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>

On 17/04/2026 22:21, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 16/04/2026 20:47, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Heikki Linnakangas <[email protected]> writes:
>>> On 16/04/2026 17:37, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> Not excited about making massive changes for this.
>>
>>> Having all three would be a very localized change in postgres.h.
>>
>> Sure, but *using* them in a consistent way would be invasive.
>>
>>>> I remain far less certain than Peter is that this discussion has
>>>> anything to do with why Coverity is complaining about
>>>> ginExtractEntries.  I still think we should make some minimum-effort
>>>> change to see if the complaint goes away before expending a lot of
>>>> brain cells on choosing a final fix.
>>
>>> I think I'm going to commit my proposal to turn PointerGetDatum() back
>>> into a macro, and see if that makes Coverity happy. Then we'll know, and
>>> we can decide on the next steps. Any objections?
>>
>> WFM.
> 
> ...
> 
> So, pushed a commit that changes just PointerGetDatum() itself, leaving 
> all those others alone.

As we thought, this made the Coverity warning go away.

I'm happy with the status quo in master, but if we want to introduce new 
ConstPointerGetDatum() or NonConstPointerGetDatum() variants instead of 
the macro, now is the time to do it.

For backbranches, IMHO we should go with the macro. It's a little scary 
to replace such a widely used function as PointerGetDatum() in 
back-branches, but I do think this should be fixed. Introducing new 
variants doesn't seems even less backpatchable.

- Heikki

view thread (31+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Reduce build times of pg_trgm GIN indexes
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox