Andrew Dunstan <andrew.dunstan@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 02/25/2017 12:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think it'd be better to leave DirectFunctionCallN alone and just invent
>> a small number of CallerFInfoFunctionCallN support functions (maybe N=1
>> and N=2 would be enough, at least for now).
> See attached.
Yeah, I like this better, except that instead of
+ * The callee should not look at anything except the fn_mcxt and fn_extra.
+ * Anything else is likely to be bogus.
maybe
+ * It's recommended that the callee only use the fn_extra and fn_mcxt
+ * fields, as other fields will typically describe the calling function
+ * not the callee. Conversely, the calling function should not have
+ * used fn_extra, unless its use is known compatible with the callee's.
regards, tom lane
