From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PATCH: pageinspect / add page_checksum and bt_page_items(bytea) |
Date: | 2017-03-24 03:27:11 |
Message-ID: | 77f3b949-05ff-f547-2c99-99b43a558f7f@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-03-24 03:28:47 | Re: Allow pg_dumpall to work without pg_authid |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-03-24 03:26:33 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Sync pg_dump and pg_dumpall output |