On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 6:49 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Nikita Glukhov <n.glu...@postgrespro.ru> writes: >> On 25.01.2017 23:58, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I think you need to take a second look at the code you're producing >>> and realize that it's not so clean either. This extract from >>> populate_record_field, for example, is pretty horrid: > >> But what if we introduce some helper macros like this: > >> #define JsValueIsNull(jsv) \ >> ((jsv)->is_json ? !(jsv)->val.json.str \ >> : !(jsv)->val.jsonb || (jsv)->val.jsonb->type == jbvNull) > >> #define JsValueIsString(jsv) \ >> ((jsv)->is_json ? (jsv)->val.json.type == JSON_TOKEN_STRING \ >> : (jsv)->val.jsonb && (jsv)->val.jsonb->type == jbvString) > > Yeah, I was wondering about that too. I'm not sure that you can make > a reasonable set of helper macros that will fix this, but if you want > to try, go for it. > > BTW, just as a stylistic thing, I find "a?b:c||d" unreadable: I have > to go back to the manual every darn time to convince myself whether > that means (a?b:c)||d or a?b:(c||d). It's better not to rely on > the reader (... or the author) having memorized C's precedence rules > in quite that much detail. Extra parens help.
Moved to CF 2017-03 as discussion is going on and more review is needed on the last set of patches. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
