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
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.
I'm half tempted to just rip out the (text, int4) variants.
Perhaps. I see pageinspect as a tool for ad-hoc investigations, and I
can't really imagine it being hard-wired into something.
In any case, I think we should add bytea variants to all the btree
functions, not just the bt_page_items one.
I agree, but I think we need to find a way to share the code between the
text/bytea variants. Unless we rip the text ones out, obviously.
Thanks for the work on the patch, BTW.
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: