From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>,
 David Geier <geidav.pg@gmail.com>,
        Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>,
        pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Reduce build times of pg_trgm GIN indexes
In-reply-to: <37ce5cce-66ca-4216-ae88-af39c444042d@iki.fi>
References: <5d366878-2007-4d31-861e-19294b7a583b@gmail.com>
 <9ac3931a-180e-4283-a7a8-05eb66099206@iki.fi>
 <e5dd01c6-c469-405d-aea2-feca0b2dc34d@gmail.com>
 <2e11134f-02c3-43da-8c39-fb520a1a251d@iki.fi>
 <66620ec7-0f81-4813-9cf1-b901a56efcc3@gmail.com>
 <CAEze2WiUL9idZBbuUN+MuWqr6DcPr_-C91E9MTx=H62Xx5fHaQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <ef8782c9-68b7-4915-9f79-497765a8e205@gmail.com>
 <a90ebbbd-0d77-49c7-b222-3dbffa4e3b14@gmail.com>
 <2a76b5ef-4b12-4023-93a1-eed6e64968f3@gmail.com>
 <6439c655-e281-409d-b884-6586750d5820@iki.fi>
 <342012.1776017102@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <8f3fab0e-02e1-4948-9683-224fe54e30ae@iki.fi>
 <77cc23dd-ac53-4bb9-9e90-0019c9ff58df@gmail.com>
 <195097d6-64cd-4adb-b8a3-1d86ae31c411@iki.fi>
 <aa908216-6ed6-4d19-b63c-a13441aeae4c@eisentraut.org>
 <2197023.1776288324@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <4c1f88d7-5102-45b3-94e3-86d7e4b46b0a@eisentraut.org>
 <99ce20a5-793a-4182-9120-f274fbef9bfd@iki.fi>
 <2340004.1776350271@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <37ce5cce-66ca-4216-ae88-af39c444042d@iki.fi>
Comments: In-reply-to Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
	message dated "Thu, 16 Apr 2026 20:30:51 +0300"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2438251.1776361625.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2026 13:47:05 -0400
Message-ID: <2438252.1776361625@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2438252.1776361625%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> 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.

			regards, tom lane