Aleksander Alekseev <aleksan...@timescale.com> writes:
> Just to clarify, a break in this case is going to be the fact that we
> are adding new functions, although inlined, correct? Or maybe
> something else? I'm sorry this is the first time I encounter the
> question of ABI compatibility in the context of Postgres, so I would
> appreciate it if you could elaborate a bit.
After absorbing a bit more caffeine, I suppose that replacing a
macro with a "static inline" function would not be an ABI break,
at least not with most modern compilers, because the code should
end up the same. I'd still vote against back-patching though.
I don't think the risk-reward ratio is good, especially not for
the pre-C99 branches which don't necessarily have "inline".
regards, tom lane
