Hi, On 2018-12-15 10:45:21 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Gierth <and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk> writes: > > "Andres" == Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > >> I think it'd probably good to add accessors for value/nullness in > >> arguments that hide the difference between <v12 and v12, for the > >> sake of extension authors. Would probably mostly make sense if we > >> backpatched those for compatibility. > > > Speaking as an affected extension author: don't backpatch them. > > Yeah, I agree.
Ok, convinced. > Looking at the patch, it seems like a real pain that substituting > "STACK_FCINFO_FOR_ARGS(fcinfo, ...)" for "FunctionCallInfoData fcinfo" > has the effect of converting "fcinfo" into a pointer. Is there a way > to define the macro so that that doesn't happen, and the ensuing > minor-but-invasive code changes aren't needed? (It'd be easy in C++, > but not quite seeing how to do it in C, at least not without defining > an additional macro for "fcinfo" that we'd then need to #undef at the > end of the function.) It'd be nice, but I wasn't able to come up with anything either. While I'd like that, I'm unfortunately doubtful others will agree to move to c++ for this :P. > I also wonder if we should rename the type FunctionCallInfoData, > perhaps to FunctionCallInfo_Data, so as to intentionally break > code that hasn't been converted. On the other hand, that might > introduce too much useless code churn --- not sure how many live > references to that struct type will remain in place. Probably doable, there ought not to be many FunctionCallInfoData references afterwards. > One more naming thought: would "LOCAL_FCINFO(...)" be a better > name for that macro? I don't think FOR_ARGS is adding much in > any case. Hm, that works. > Why does struct agg_strict_input_check now have *both* > NullableDatum and "bool *nulls"? If that's not a typo, > it needs to be documented what the fields are for. I'll check whether it can be simplified. > I do not think the 0002 patch is a good idea. It's going to add > cycles to function calls, and it's not buying anything I'd call > important. Yea, same conclusion I came to. I dislike those verbose copies of functions a lot, but the approach I could find out to resolve that, seem like a cure worse than the disease. Greetings, Andres Freund
