Andrew Dunstan <andrew.duns...@2ndquadrant.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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers