On 1/3/16 2:37 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
+ /* num_nulls(VARIADIC NULL) is defined as NULL */
+ if (PG_ARGISNULL(0))
+ return false;
Could you add to the comment explaining why that's the desired behavior?
+ /*
+ * Non-null argument had better be an array. We assume that
any call
+ * context that could let get_fn_expr_variadic return true will
have
+ * checked that a VARIADIC-labeled parameter actually is an
array. So
+ * it should be okay to just Assert that it's an array rather
than
+ * doing a full-fledged error check.
+ */
+
Assert(OidIsValid(get_base_element_type(get_fn_expr_argtype(fcinfo->flinfo,
0))));
Erm... is that really the way to verify that what you have is an array?
ISTM there should be a macro for that somewhere...
+ /* OK, safe to fetch the array value */
+ arr = PG_GETARG_ARRAYTYPE_P(0);
+
+ ndims = ARR_NDIM(arr);
+ dims = ARR_DIMS(arr);
+ nitems = ArrayGetNItems(ndims, dims);
+
+ bitmap = ARR_NULLBITMAP(arr);
+ if (bitmap)
+ {
+ bitmask = 1;
+
+ for (i = 0; i < nitems; i++)
+ {
+ if ((*bitmap & bitmask) == 0)
+ count++;
+
+ bitmask <<= 1;
+ if (bitmask == 0x100)
+ {
+ bitmap++;
+ bitmask = 1;
For brevity and example sake it'd probably be better to just use the
normal iterator, unless there's a serious speed difference?
In the unit test, I'd personally prefer just building a table with the
test cases and the expected NULL/NOT NULL results, at least for all the
calls that would fit that paradigm. That should significantly reduce the
size of the test. Not a huge deal though...
Also, I don't think anything is testing multiples of whatever value...
how 'bout change the generate_series CASE statement to >40 instead of <>40?
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
