Re: Why is fncollation in FunctionCallInfoData rather than fmgr_info?
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Why is fncollation in FunctionCallInfoData rather than fmgr_info? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 9136.1528261309@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Why is fncollation in FunctionCallInfoData rather than fmgr_info? (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Why is fncollation in FunctionCallInfoData rather than fmgr_info?
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.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
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: