On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Jorge Arevalo <jorgearevalo@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> Yes. For example, the function expects 2 arguments, and it's called >> with 2 arguments: 1 composite type (following this format >> https://svn.osgeo.org/postgis/spike/wktraster/doc/RFC1-SerializedFormat) >> and one integer. But PG_NARGS() returns a really big value (16297) >> when I first check the number of arguments at the beginning of the >> function. Has sense? > > Given only that data point, I would guess that you forgot to mark the > function as being called with V1 protocol (PG_FUNCTION_INFO_V1). > > regards, tom lane > Many thanks! That was one of my errors. Another one was this: char szDataPointer[10]; sprintf(szDataPointer, "%p", a_pointer); These lines caused a memory error. I changed them for: char * pszDataPointer; pszDataPointer = (char *)allocator(10 * sizeof(char)); sprintf(pszDataPointer, "%p", a_pointer); Meaning "allocator" a memory allocator in a valid memory context for PostgreSQL. And seems to work :-). Is the static memory "dangerous" in a PostgreSQL memory context? Thanks again! Jorge -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
