On 02/25/2017 01:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > 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. > >
OK, Works for me. Thanks. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
