Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> On 13/07/10 21:36, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I wasn't terribly happy with that approach to begin with. I think we
>> need to rethink.
> Do you want to go ahead with your plan of changing what's passed in
> FuncInfo? I won't object if you want to do it, but I wouldn't feel
> comfortable with backporting such big changes myself.
I will take a look at it, but not right away. Since we have no
near-term plans for new minor releases, I don't think it's urgent.
> If we continue with the approach I took, we should implement the
> suggestion to create a new data type for this in 9.1. That would be more
> waterproof than the changes I made, if we introduce new ways to call
> functions in the future.
Agreed, that seems like a better solution going forward than either of
the others.
regards, tom lane