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

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Thomas G. Lockhart
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Lost a function overloading capability in v6.3
Дата
Msg-id 34FD5CC9.67EE88EB@alumni.caltech.edu
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Lost a function overloading capability in v6.3  (jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck))
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] Lost a function overloading capability in v6.3  (jwieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck))
Список 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


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: "Thomas G. Lockhart"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Glibc2 (was Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL - the Linux of Databases...)
Следующее
От: "Thomas G. Lockhart"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] version control backups?