From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski <me(at)komzpa(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Better testing coverage and unified coding for plpgsql loops |
Date: | 2018-01-02 15:08:10 |
Message-ID: | 31838.1514905690@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski wrote:
>> - can this macro become a function?
> The "exit_action" argument makes it tough. It can probably be done --
> it seems to require contorting the one callsite that uses "goto" though.
It could be converted into a function returning bool, a la
if (!loop_rc_processing(...))
break;
but then the burden is on you to show there's negligible performance
impact, a question that doesn't arise when just macro-izing existing
code. I suppose the function could be made inline, but then we're
right back to the question of how well lcov will display the actual
code coverage.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Shubham Barai | 2018-01-02 15:31:08 | Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 6) |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2018-01-02 15:07:54 | Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions |