Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 02/23/2017 04:41 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The reason this is kind of scary is that it's just blithely assuming
>> that the function won't look at the *other* fields of the FmgrInfo.
>> If it did, it would likely get very confused, since those fields
>> would be describing the GIN support function, not the function we're
>> calling.
>>
>> We could alternatively have this trampoline function set up a fresh, local
>> FmgrInfo struct that it zeroes except for copying fn_extra and fn_mcxt
>> from the caller's struct, and then it copies fn_extra back again on the
>> way out. That's a few more cycles but it would be safer, I think; if the
>> function tried to look at the other fields such as fn_oid it would see
>> obviously bogus data.
> Do we want one or both of these? I'm prepared to code up a patch to
> fmgr.[ch] to provide them.
On reflection I'm not sure that the double-copy approach is all that much
safer than just passing down the caller's flinfo pointer. Most of the
time it would be better, but suppose that the callee updates fn_extra
and then throws elog(ERROR) --- the outcome would be different, probably
creating a leak in fn_mcxt. Maybe this would still be okay, because
perhaps that FmgrInfo is never used again, but I don't think we can assume
that for the case at hand.
At this point I'd be inclined to just document that the called function
should only use fn_extra/fn_mcxt.
> I don't know what to call it either. In my test I used
> CallerContextFunctionCall2 - not sure if that's quite right, but should
> be close.
CallerInfo? CallerFInfo? Or we could spell out CallerFmgrInfo but
that seems a bit verbose.
regards, tom lane