Tom Lane wrote: > I really think we should stick with the macro implementation, unless > somebody wants to do some actual investigation to prove that a > function implementation imposes negligible cost. I'm not prepared > to just assume that, especially not after the work I just did on > plpgsql record processing --- I initially thought that an extra > function call or three wouldn't matter in those code paths either, > but I found out differently.
I don't really care too much about the macro-or-function side of this, but if you wanted to improve debuggability avoiding the performance cost of a function call, you could use a static inline function, which is supposed (AFAIK) to have performance characteristics equivalent to those of a macro. But again I'm not voting either way and I'm not in a position to do the legwork either. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
