> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > No, because we aren't ever going to be dynamically allocating these
> > things; they'll be local variables in the calling function.
>
> Fair enough then. Although that being the case, I don't see the big deal
> about using a few more bytes of stack space which costs absolutely
> nothing, even though the binary compatibility is a small but still real
> advantage.
I like Tom's clean design better. Flexibility for little payback
usually just messes up clarity of the code.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026
