At Fri, 15 Sep 2017 17:23:28 +0900 (Tokyo Standard Time), Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote in <20170915.172328.97446299.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> > At Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:19:13 -0400, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote > in <ca+tgmobinba7uvqifyaygdduof6vto56dvott6nkspjf-zf...@mail.gmail.com> > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 3:33 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI > > <horiguchi.kyot...@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?
That being said, I'm not stick on that if Robert or others think it as needless. 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