Re: PL/pgSQL nested CALL with transactions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On 3/27/18 20:43, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>> 3) utility.c
>>>
>>> I find this condition rather confusing:
>>>
>>>     (!(context == PROCESS_UTILITY_TOPLEVEL ||
>>>        context == PROCESS_UTILITY_QUERY_NONATOMIC) ||
>>>        IsTransactionBlock())
>>>
>>> I mean, negated || with another || - it took me a while to parse what
>>> that means. I suggest doing this instead:
>>>
>>> #define ProcessUtilityIsAtomic(context)        \
>>>        (!(context == PROCESS_UTILITY_TOPLEVEL ||
>>>           context == PROCESS_UTILITY_QUERY_NONATOMIC))
>>>
>>>     (ProcessUtilityIsAtomic(context) || IsTransactionBlock())
>> fixed
>>
> Ummm, I still see the original code here.

I put the formula into a separate variable isAtomicContext instead of
repeating it twice.  I think that makes it clearer.  I'm not sure
splitting it up like above makes it better, because the
IsTransactionBlock() is part of the "is atomic".  Maybe adding a comment
would make it clearer.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services