Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2018 10:46:23 -0300
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Darafei =?utf-8?B?IktvbdGPcGEi?= Praliaskouski <me@komzpa.net>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Better testing coverage and unified coding for plpgsql loops
Message-ID: <20180102134623.4mhrbnc2im6bfp7a@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAC8Q8t+nY_O+-KAvHao2T9Fj7rw1hVeSNNALERHyhvpTMgafgg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170306-137-4415bd-dirty (1.8.0)
Precedence: bulk

Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski wrote:

>  - how do currently existing coverage tools display coverage for such a
> large macro?
> 
> I expect DEFINE's to be treated as comments.

It is, but then it is counted in the callsite where each branch is
displayed separately.  So in
https://coverage.postgresql.org/src/pl/plpgsql/src/pl_exec.c.gcov.html
line 2028 you can see a bunch of "+" and three "-".

>  - 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.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services