From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski <me@komzpa.net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Better testing coverage and unified coding for plpgsql loops
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2018 10:08:10 -0500
Message-ID: <31838.1514905690@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180102134623.4mhrbnc2im6bfp7a@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20180102134623.4mhrbnc2im6bfp7a@alvherre.pgsql>
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.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
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: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org, me@komzpa.net, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Better testing coverage and unified coding for plpgsql loops
In-Reply-To: <31838.1514905690@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox