On 12/16/09, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:34 PM, Kurt Harriman <harri...@acm.org> wrote: > >> Your worry ii) can be ignored, managing to compile on such > >> compilers is already overachievement. > > > > I think so too. With your opinion added to mine, do we constitute a > > consensus of the pg community? Someone might object that a sample of > > two individuals is insufficiently representative of the whole, but > > away with the pedants: let us not quibble over trifles. > > > I haven't completely followed this thread, but I think there has been > some discussion of making changes to inline that would cause > regressions for people using old, crappy compilers, and I think we > should avoid doing that unless there is some compelling benefit. I'm > not sure what that benefit would be - I don't think "cleaner code" is > enough.
Seems you have not followed the thread... Hypothetical old, crappy compilers would still work, only AC_C_INLINE would turn "static inline" into plain "static", so hypothetically they would get some warnings about unused functions. As this is all hypothetical, I don't see why that should stop us cleaning our code? -- marko -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
