Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2020-12-07 16:32:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> What did you think of the idea of merging EEOP_SBSREF_OLD / ASSIGN / FETCH
>> into a single step type distinguished only by the callback function?
> I don't have a strong opinion on this. I guess find it a bit easier to
> understand the generated "program" if the opcodes are distinct (I've a
> pending patch printing the opcode sequence). Especially as the payload
> is just function pointers.
> So I think I'd just merge the *implementation* of the steps, but leave
> the different opcodes around?
Fair enough. It wasn't entirely clear to me whether it'd be kosher to
write
EEO_CASE(EEOP_SBSREF_OLD)
EEO_CASE(EEOP_SBSREF_ASSIGN)
EEO_CASE(EEOP_SBSREF_FETCH)
{
// do something
EEO_NEXT();
}
I can see that that should work for the two existing implementations
of EEO_CASE, but I wasn't sure if you wanted to wire in an assumption
that it'll always work.
regards, tom lane
