Re: btree_gin and btree_gist for enums

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: btree_gin and btree_gist for enums
Date: 2017-02-25 18:39:31
Message-ID: c934ffff-c062-39d8-25a0-7157a3ecff49@2ndQuadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 02/25/2017 01:34 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)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.

cheers

andrew

--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2017-02-25 18:43:52 Re: Should `pg_upgrade --check` check relation filenodes are present?
Previous Message Joshua D. Drake 2017-02-25 18:39:14 Re: I propose killing PL/Tcl's "modules" infrastructure