Paul Ramsey <[email protected]> writes:
> As we've added different kinds of caching, in our own project, we've banged
> up against problems of multiple functions trying to stuff information into
> the same pointer, and ended up putting an extra container of our own into
> fn_extra, to hold the different kinds of stuff we might want to store, a
> GenericCacheCollection
TBH, I fail to understand what you're on about here. Any one function
owns the value of fn_extra in calls to it, and is solely responsible for
its usage; furthermore, there's no way for any other code to mangle that
pointer unless the owner explicitly makes it available. So where is
the problem? And if there is a problem, how does adding another field
of exactly the same kind make it better?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list ([email protected])
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
