Re: suspicious pointer/integer coersion

From: Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: suspicious pointer/integer coersion
Date: 2005-07-11 03:30:49
Message-ID: 42D1E7E9.4050809@familyhealth.com.au
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> Looking further ... we already do this implicitly for prodesc in the
> call handler - we would just need to do the same thing for per-call
> structures and divorce them from prodesc, which can be repeated on the
> implicit stack.
>
> I'll work on that - changes should be quite small.

Sounds like recursive calls are somethign that should be tested for PLs
in the regressions...

Chris

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-07-11 03:47:02 Re: Fixing domain input
Previous Message Satoshi Nagayasu 2005-07-11 03:13:20 Re: A couple of p.tches for PostgreSQL 64bit support