Re: Better testing coverage and unified coding for plpgsql loops

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski <me(at)komzpa(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Better testing coverage and unified coding for plpgsql loops
Date: 2018-01-02 15:08:10
Message-ID: 31838.1514905690@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Shubham Barai 2018-01-02 15:31:08 Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 6)
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2018-01-02 15:07:54 Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions