From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: btree_gin and btree_gist for enums |
Date: | 2017-02-25 18:34:31 |
Message-ID: | 22791.1488047671@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 02/25/2017 12:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think it'd be better to leave DirectFunctionCallN alone and just invent
>> a small number of CallerFInfoFunctionCallN support functions (maybe N=1
>> and N=2 would be enough, at least for now).
> See attached.
Yeah, I like this better, except that instead of
+ * The callee should not look at anything except the fn_mcxt and fn_extra.
+ * Anything else is likely to be bogus.
maybe
+ * It's recommended that the callee only use the fn_extra and fn_mcxt
+ * fields, as other fields will typically describe the calling function
+ * not the callee. Conversely, the calling function should not have
+ * used fn_extra, unless its use is known compatible with the callee's.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2017-02-25 18:37:26 | Re: I propose killing PL/Tcl's "modules" infrastructure |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-02-25 18:27:06 | PL/Python: Add cursor and execute methods to plan object |