On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 10:16 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 19, 2022 at 8:57 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > BTW, I was distressed to discover that someone decided they could > > use ExecShutdownNode as a planstate_tree_walker() walker even though > > its argument list is not even the right length. I'm a bit flabbergasted > > that we seem to have gotten away with that so far, because I'd have > > thought for sure that it'd break some platform's convention for which > > argument gets passed where. I think we need to fix that, independently > > of what we do about the larger scope of these problems. To avoid an > > API break, I propose making ExecShutdownNode just be a one-liner that > > calls an internal ExecShutdownNode_walker() function. (I've not done > > it that way in the attached, though.) > > Huh... wouldn't systems that pass arguments right-to-left on the stack > receive NULL for node? That'd include the SysV i386 convention used > on Linux, *BSD etc. But that can't be right or we'd know about it...
I take that back after looking up some long forgotten details; it happily ignores extra arguments.
