> On 3 Feb 2025, at 02:56, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> I decided to see what would happen if we tried to avoid the code
> duplication in pl_funcs.c by making some "walker" infrastructure
> akin to expression_tree_walker. While that doesn't seem useful
> for the dump_xxx functions, it works very nicely for the free_xxx
> functions and now for the mark_xxx ones as well. pl_funcs.c
> nets out about 400 lines shorter than in the v4 patch. The
> code coverage score for the file is still awful :-(, but that's
> because we're not testing the dump_xxx functions at all.
>
> PFA v5. The new 0001 patch refactors the free_xxx infrastructure
> to create plpgsql_statement_tree_walker(), and then in what's now
> 0003 we can use that instead of writing a lot of duplicate code.
Pre-preliminary refactoring looks good to me, as the rest of the patch set.
(Well, maybe paramarg2 resonates a bit, just from similarity with varchar2)
ecpg tests seem to fail on Windows[0], but looks like it's not related to this thread.
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
[0] https://cirrus-ci.com/task/4835794898124800
