From: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PATCH: pageinspect / add page_checksum and bt_page_items(bytea) |
Date: | 2017-03-28 15:05:10 |
Message-ID: | 07b18926-305e-212a-0034-3519c20410fb@pgmasters.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 3/23/17 11:27 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 3/17/17 18:35, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> On 03/17/2017 05:23 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> I'm struggling to find a good way to share code between
>>> bt_page_items(text, int4) and bt_page_items(bytea).
>>>
>>> If we do it via the SQL route, as I had suggested, it makes the
>>> extension non-relocatable, and it will also create a bit of a mess
>>> during upgrades.
>>>
>>> If doing it in C, it will be a bit tricky to pass the SRF context
>>> around. There is no "DirectFunctionCall within SRF context", AFAICT.
>>
>> Not sure what it has to do with DirectFunctionCall? You want to call the
>> bytea variant from the existing one? Wouldn't it be easier to simply
>> define a static function with the shared parts, and pass around the
>> fctx/fcinfo? Not quite pretty, but should work.
>
> Perhaps what was added in
> <http://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/29bf5016835a2c2c23786f7cda347716c083d95f>
> would actually work here.
This thread has been idle for five days. Please respond with a new
patch by 2017-03-30 00:00 AoE (UTC-12) or this submission will be marked
"Returned with Feedback".
--
-David
david(at)pgmasters(dot)net
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-03-28 15:08:23 | Re: logical decoding of two-phase transactions |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-03-28 15:04:44 | Re: Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM) |