Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 1:46 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> The main objection I can see to this approach is that we only support >> one context value per call, so you could not easily combine this >> functionality with existing use-cases for the context field.
> I kind of wonder why we don't just add another member to FmgrInfo. > It's 48 bytes right now and this would increase the size to 56 bytes, This'd be FunctionCallInfoData not FmgrInfo. I'm not terribly concerned about the size of FunctionCallInfoData, but I am concerned about the number of cycles spent to initialize it, because we do that pretty durn often. So I don't really want to add fields to it without compelling use-cases, and I don't see one here. regards, tom lane