Re: refactoring - share str2*int64 functions

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: refactoring - share str2*int64 functions
Date: 2019-08-29 00:22:37
Message-ID: 20190829002237.GC1864@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 09:50:44AM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> - *ptr && WHATEVER(*ptr)
> *ptr is redundant, WHATEVER yields false on '\0', and it costs on each
> char but at the end. It might be debatable in some places, e.g. it is
> likely that there are no spaces in the string, but likely that there are
> more than one digit.

Still this makes the checks less robust?

> If you want all/some *ptr added back, no problem.
>
> - isdigit repeated on if and following while, used if/do-while instead.

I see, you don't check twice if the first character is a digit this
way.

> Hmmm. Have you looked at the fallback cases when the corresponding builtins
> are not available?
>
> I'm unsure of a reliable way to detect a generic unsigned int overflow
> without expensive dividing back and having to care about zero…

Mr Freund has mentioned that here:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20190717184820.iqz7schxdbucmdmu@alap3.anarazel.de

> So I was pretty happy with my two discreet, small and efficient tests.

That's also a matter of code and interface consistency IMHO.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2019-08-29 00:46:39 Re: Improve error detections in TAP tests by spreading safe_psql
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2019-08-29 00:09:05 Re: REINDEX filtering in the backend