| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Why is fncollation in FunctionCallInfoData rather than fmgr_info? |
| Date: | 2018-06-06 14:53:01 |
| Message-ID: | 1822d92f-7e3d-f840-826f-c9420c65a6db@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/6/18 09:06, Andres Freund wrote:
>> It's true that we often abuse fn_extra to hold data that's essentially
>> call-site-dependent, but I don't think that's a good reason to push
>> collation into FmgrInfo.
> FmgrInfo really *is* call-site dependent, no? fn_extra, fn_mcxt, fn_expr
> all are. I think it's more useful to view the FmgrInfo /
> FunctionCallInfo data split as the separation between per-callsite and
> per-call data. And I think it'd make much more sense to officially
> treat collation as the former.
I think there are really three sets of information: catalog lookup
information, per query/expression information (such as collation), and
per-call information. But we only have two places to put things, so it
might look a bit odd.
Nothing wrong with considering changes, of course.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Petr Jelinek | 2018-06-06 14:57:22 | Re: pg_replication_slot_advance to return NULL instead of 0/0 if slot not advanced |
| Previous Message | MauMau | 2018-06-06 14:46:22 | Re: I'd like to discuss scaleout at PGCon |