Re: Better testing coverage and unified coding for plpgsql loops

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski wrote:
>> - can this macro become a function?

> The "exit_action" argument makes it tough.  It can probably be done --
> it seems to require contorting the one callsite that uses "goto" though.

It could be converted into a function returning bool, a la

	if (!loop_rc_processing(...))
		break;

but then the burden is on you to show there's negligible performance
impact, a question that doesn't arise when just macro-izing existing
code.  I suppose the function could be made inline, but then we're
right back to the question of how well lcov will display the actual
code coverage.

			regards, tom lane