Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [HACKERS] Lost a function overloading capability in v6.3

From: "Thomas G(dot) Lockhart" <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
To: Jan Wieck <jwieck(at)debis(dot)com>
Cc: meskes(at)topsystem(dot)de, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Lost a function overloading capability in v6.3
Date: 1998-03-04 13:53:13
Message-ID: 34FD5CC9.67EE88EB@alumni.caltech.edu (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> > > > When I run this same thing on v6.3, I get a date sometime in 1974 which
> > > > I think might actually be derived from a pointer interpreted as an
> > > > integer :(
>
>     The  bug  is  that  when  the  language  is  internal but the
>     function isn't in the builtin table, fmgr_info() (in  fmgr.c)
>     doesn't  set  fn_nargs.  So fmgr_c() calls abstime_datetime()
>     without arguments.
>
>     Add
>
>     finfo->fn_nargs = procedureStruct->pronargs;
>
>     in the INTERNALlanguageId arm of the switch in  fmgr.c  (line
>     198).

THANKS JAN! I was just getting started doing a binary search of the source trees
trying to find when the problem was introduced. This saved me a _lot_ of time...

I just tried it and it works! I added the line just below the elog(ERROR) check
in that same block of code.

Now, should this be done conditionally or is it OK to set this all the time? I
looked back at the v6.2.1 code and this field was not explicitly set in this
area, so has the behavior of something else changed? What would you suggest??

                                             - Tom


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Thomas G. LockhartDate: 1998-03-04 13:57:51
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] version control backups?
Previous:From: Thomas G. LockhartDate: 1998-03-04 13:31:26
Subject: Re: Glibc2 (was Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL - the Linux of Databases...)

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group