public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Andrey Borodin <[email protected]>
To: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Cc: Pavel Borisov <[email protected]>
Cc: Michel Pelletier <[email protected]>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Using Expanded Objects other than Arrays from plpgsql
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2025 14:19:09 +0500
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <CACxu=vJaKFNsYxooSnW1wEgsAO5u_v1XYBacfVJ14wgJV_PYeg@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CACxu=vLXvpzN4X3k+9jsMt6ujuOvFVUSkA80t_cROSsF4y2jQQ@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CACxu=vKEF8Qa-OaADFxf0uMg-xw6gH_CNCWd2s+xaqh-gY4=xg@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CACxu=v++HNmss59yGUDkRny7g=M8tZ2YXF07AUXqKVGqcSfxGQ@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CACxu=v+dn37zr8gx5xNP-EZY3OLtGLTHrbx_ZkCQc40HpyMLKA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CACxu=vL7i_U_iSNpREe8eCAMEyKHuPpk9THRpBhk+ar0U1EdOw@mail.gmail.com>
<CACxu=vKLc6f5N8_DR58LKkE1eohWSxTvThTeGsLm7p7QH1aFBA@mail.gmail.com>
<CACxu=vJf2S=ysun_h=zmYNu6oUM47+egbpX5mMC0X9BJK=EQwQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CACxu=vK+S6BXN8ZYyBvqQBWrcwHXqtue1-ZuKO3+XtHGBYcDUQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAFj8pRCd6xcH-AYEyHFdGdU89O9JjZ-v-pyQnOwd9zNJkCEdhQ@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CACxu=! ! [email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CACxu=vKModwqSpEjpn-ur1uMAEYkcd-i8CvNsH-z9=dk7F7YQw@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<CALT9ZEGy5+GNQUtR80BPL7k-Qi47sqwPLnN_dOaQUW5UbxcTGA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
> On 3 Feb 2025, at 02:56, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I decided to see what would happen if we tried to avoid the code
> duplication in pl_funcs.c by making some "walker" infrastructure
> akin to expression_tree_walker. While that doesn't seem useful
> for the dump_xxx functions, it works very nicely for the free_xxx
> functions and now for the mark_xxx ones as well. pl_funcs.c
> nets out about 400 lines shorter than in the v4 patch. The
> code coverage score for the file is still awful :-(, but that's
> because we're not testing the dump_xxx functions at all.
>
> PFA v5. The new 0001 patch refactors the free_xxx infrastructure
> to create plpgsql_statement_tree_walker(), and then in what's now
> 0003 we can use that instead of writing a lot of duplicate code.
Pre-preliminary refactoring looks good to me, as the rest of the patch set.
(Well, maybe paramarg2 resonates a bit, just from similarity with varchar2)
ecpg tests seem to fail on Windows[0], but looks like it's not related to this thread.
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
[0] https://cirrus-ci.com/task/4835794898124800
view thread (34+ messages) latest in thread
reply
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Using Expanded Objects other than Arrays from plpgsql
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox