On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 12:09:06PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2024-02-18 17:38:09 +0900, Sutou Kouhei wrote:
>> @@ -1966,7 +1992,7 @@ CopyReadBinaryAttribute(CopyFromState cstate, FmgrInfo
>> *flinfo,
>> if (fld_size == -1)
>> {
>> *isnull = true;
>> - return ReceiveFunctionCall(flinfo, NULL, typioparam, typmod);
>> + return ReceiveFunctionCall(fcinfo->flinfo, NULL,
>> attr->typioparam, attr->typmod);
>>
>> Why pre-initialized fcinfo isn't used here?
>
> Because it's a prototype and because I don't think it's a common path.0008 and 0010 (a bit) are the only patches of the set that touch some of the areas that would be impacted by the refactoring to use callbacks in the COPY code, still I don't see anything that could not be changed in what's updated here, the one-row callback in COPY FROM being the most touched. So I don't quite see why each effort could not happen on their own? Or Andres, do you think that any improvements you've been proposing in this area should happen before we consider refactoring the COPY code to plug in the callbacks? I'm a bit confused by the situation, TBH. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
