Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 1:46 PM Tom Lane <tgl@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