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.



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:

Reply via email to