Re: Why is fncollation in FunctionCallInfoData rather than fmgr_info?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Why is fncollation in FunctionCallInfoData rather than fmgr_info?
Date: 2018-06-06 23:16:52
Message-ID: 4055.1528327012@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2018-06-06 21:25:14 +0100, Andrew Gierth wrote:
>> The obvious case which is not one of those "pretty much all cases" is
>> where DirectFunctionCallN[Coll] is used - which turns out to be not all
>> that unusual.

> There the callsite just lives for just one call, I don't really see that
> being an exception?

The problem with your proposal, for that case, is that there's no FmgrInfo
to put the collation into.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Claudio Freire 2018-06-06 23:29:55 Re: POC: GROUP BY optimization
Previous Message Andres Freund 2018-06-06 23:11:00 Re: Why is fncollation in FunctionCallInfoData rather than fmgr_info?