From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: improve FOUND in PL/PgSQL |
Date: | 2002-08-14 23:10:34 |
Message-ID: | 17348.1029366634@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org> writes:
>> I think you could do this
>> much more cleanly by introducing a local boolean:
> Ah, ok -- thanks for the suggestion. It required a fair amount of
> work, since I had to refactor a lot of the logic in the 3 functions
> that handle PL/PgSQL FOR loops.
Then you're still doing it the hard way: all you need is to do
exec_set_found(found) immediately before anyplace that's going to
return. You don't need to move the returns.
Perhaps the refactoring is worth doing anyway, if it improves the
readability of the code; but if it makes it worse then there's no need.
It's hard to tell about this just from looking at the diff --- what
do you feel about what you did?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Neil Conway | 2002-08-14 23:23:31 | Re: improve FOUND in PL/PgSQL |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2002-08-14 23:00:35 | Re: improve FOUND in PL/PgSQL |