MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAEudQAq_zOSA2NUQSWePTGV_=90Uw0WcXxGOWnN-vwF046OOqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <2D90FFB0-C80A-4189-A5BF-C37F05E271D7@greg.burd.me>
 <CAApHDvqXdBWMwGuzJBSbq4eiNLDaR738-upd8NJpmhUq3a+XLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <aOcaIr8QKMvbIlnA@paquier.xyz>
 <CAApHDvpn3bshX+_2t0NbJ263r1etcBdmkROjuJw8DvyZkMcXqg@mail.gmail.com>
 <aOcwU_0-U3zbNDki@paquier.xyz>
 <CAApHDvp=pEkO6LKfXKDjRNeQ1LkV7A5fsTn29ahUBXxmjyWPHg@mail.gmail.com>
 <aOg3X3BXjiXljHcR@paquier.xyz>
 <CAApHDvrDW9W72vAr7h7XeCu7+Qz-_Vff02Q+RPPuVeM0Qf0MCw@mail.gmail.com>
 <aeVLY650jkngPNE2@paquier.xyz>
In-Reply-To: <aeVLY650jkngPNE2@paquier.xyz>
From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2026 10:06:46 +1200
Message-ID: 
 <CAApHDvoKKyzC7DarQb0dwLFtk_4S1UThCtqz9miXjeRmYDZD5w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add tests for Bitmapset
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Greg Burd <greg@burd.me>, Ranier Vilela <ranier.vf@gmail.com>,
	Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>,
 PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAApHDvoKKyzC7DarQb0dwLFtk_4S1UThCtqz9miXjeRmYDZD5w%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 at 09:38, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2026 at 09:06:02PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> > 2. Doing #1 means the function can't be STRICT. I do think it's wrong
> > that the function is marked as strict. That's normally reserved for
> > functions that we needn't call because NULL input(s) yield a NULL
> > output. That's not the case for this function.
>
> Using the existing HEAD approach where STRICT avoids these extra NULL
> checks, or adding explicit NULL checks without STRICT does not strike
> me as a big difference in this context.

I had to remove STRICT to allow NULL to be passed for the seed. When I
first modified test_bitmapset.c to only choose a random seed when it
received NULL, I thought it was strange that the function appeared to
return NULL. It took me a minute to realise I was getting the STRICT
NULL short-circuiting.

> > I felt it was worth fixing these now as the function I plan to add
> > there does #1, #2, #3 and #4. If I add the new function for v20, the
> > discrepancy seems questionable.
>
> It is a test module, it would be a big issue if new pieces are
> backpatched in this area.  In short I'm fine with these.  Thanks for
> asking.

Did you mean "wouldn't"?

Thanks for looking. I pushed before I saw your reply.

David