Tom Lane wrote:
> No, because we aren't ever going to be dynamically allocating these
> things; they'll be local variables in the calling function.
Fair enough then. Although that being the case, I don't see the big deal
about using a few more bytes of stack space which costs absolutely
nothing, even though the binary compatibility is a small but still real
advantage.
> >>>> Wondering if some stub code generator might be appropriate so that
> >>>> functions can can continue to look as readable as before?
> >>
> >> Er, did you read to the end of the proposal?
>
> > Yep. Did I miss your point?
>
> Possibly, or else I'm missing yours. What would a stub code generator
> do for us that the proposed GETARG and RETURN macros won't do?
Only that it might be slightly cleaner code, but you're probably right.
I just have experience doing this sort of thing and know that manually
grabbing each argument can be painful with hundreds of functions.