| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Nikita Glukhov <n(dot)gluhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Error-safe user functions |
| Date: | 2022-12-02 21:19:11 |
| Message-ID: | 2134307.1670015951@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 1:46 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> The main objection I can see to this approach is that we only support
>> one context value per call, so you could not easily combine this
>> functionality with existing use-cases for the context field.
> I kind of wonder why we don't just add another member to FmgrInfo.
> It's 48 bytes right now and this would increase the size to 56 bytes,
This'd be FunctionCallInfoData not FmgrInfo.
I'm not terribly concerned about the size of FunctionCallInfoData,
but I am concerned about the number of cycles spent to initialize it,
because we do that pretty durn often. So I don't really want to add
fields to it without compelling use-cases, and I don't see one here.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2022-12-02 21:41:36 | Re: Using WaitEventSet in the postmaster |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2022-12-02 20:49:09 | Re: Error-safe user functions |