From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Why is fncollation in FunctionCallInfoData rather than fmgr_info? |
Date: | 2018-06-06 05:01:49 |
Message-ID: | 9136.1528261309@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> In my understanding FunctionCallInfoData is basically per-call data,
> whereas FmgrInfo is information about the function. It makes some sense
> that ->context is in FunctionCallInfoData, after all it's used for
> per-row data like the trigger context. But we don't really change the
> collation of function invocations per-call. Thus I don't quite get why
> FunctionCallInfoData contains information about it rather than FmgrInfo.
[squint] I would say that the call collation is an argument, not a
property of the function, and therefore is correctly located in
FunctionCallInfoData.
It's true that we often abuse fn_extra to hold data that's essentially
call-site-dependent, but I don't think that's a good reason to push
collation into FmgrInfo.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2018-06-06 05:10:07 | Re: why partition pruning doesn't work? |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2018-06-06 04:52:46 | Re: Loaded footgun open_datasync on Windows |