Hi,
On 2020-12-07 16:32:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > I think it'd be a better to rely on the backend's definition of
> > ExecEvalBoolSubroutine etc. For the functions implementing expression
> > steps I've found that far easier to work with over time (because you can
> > get LLVM to issue type mismatch errors when the signature changes,
> > instead of seeing compile failures).
>
> I'm a little unclear on what you mean here? There wasn't such a
> thing as ExecEvalBoolSubroutine until I added it in this patch.
Basically that I suggest doing what I did in the prototype patch I
attached, mirroring what it did with TypeExecEvalSubroutine for the new
ExecEvalBoolSubroutine case.
> 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?
Greetings,
Andres Freund