At Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:19:13 -0400, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote in
<CA+TgmobinBA7uvQifYaYGdDUoF6VTo56dvoTT6nKSpJF-Zfv5A@mail.gmail.com>
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 3:33 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> > I recall a bit about the double-evaluation hazards. I think the
> > functions needs a comment describing the reasons so that anyone
> > kind won't try to merge them into a macro again.
>
> I think we can count on PostgreSQL developers to understand the
> advantages of an inline function over a macro. Even if they don't,
> the solution can't be to put a comment in every place where an inline
> function is used explaining it. That would be very repetitive.
Of course putting such a comment to all inline functions is
silly. The point here is that many pairs of two functions with
exactly the same shape but handle different types are defined
side by side. Such situation seems tempting to merge them into
single macros, as the previous author did there.
So a simple one like the following would be enough.
/* don't merge the following same functions with different types into single macros so that double evaluation won't
happen*/
Is it still too verbose?
regards,
--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
