Re: Optimize PL/Perl function argument passing [PATCH]

On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 12:10:59PM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> 
> On 02/02/2011 11:45 AM, Tim Bunce wrote:
> >>But why are we bothering to keep $prolog at
> >>all any more, if all we're going to pass it is&PL_sv_no all the
> >>time? Maybe we'll have a use for it in the future, but right now we
> >>don't appear to unless I'm missing something.
> >
> >PostgreSQL::PLPerl::NYTProf would break if it was removed, so I'd rather
> >it wasn't.
> >
> >I could work around that if there's an easy way for perl code to tell
> >what version of PostgreSQL. If there isn't I think it would be worth
> >adding.
> 
> Not really. It might well be good to add but that needs to wait for
> another time.

Ok.

> I gather you're plugging in a replacement for mkfunc?

Yes.

> For now I'll add a comment to the code saying why it's there.

Thanks.

Tim.