Re: Better testing coverage and unified coding for plpgsql loops

On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 1:53 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I thought about this a bit harder and realized that if we make it
> a function, we will have to pass "rc" by reference since the function
> needs to change it in some cases. That might have no impact if the
> compiler is smart enough, but I expect on at least some compilers
> it would end up forcing rc into memory with an attendant speed hit.
>
> I really think we should stick with the macro implementation, unless
> somebody wants to do some actual investigation to prove that a
> function implementation imposes negligible cost. I'm not prepared
> to just assume that, especially not after the work I just did on
> plpgsql record processing --- I initially thought that an extra
> function call or three wouldn't matter in those code paths either,
> but I found out differently.

OK. I'm not really exercised about it, so I'll leave it to others to
decide whether they want to spend time on it.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company