On 2013-11-19 10:30:24 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > I don't have an informed opinion about requiring inline support > > (although it would surely be nice). > > inline is C99, and we've generally resisted requiring C99 features. > Maybe it's time to move that goalpost, and maybe not.
But it's a part of C99 that was very widely implemented before, so even if we don't want to rely on C99 in its entirety, relying on inline support is realistic. I think, independent from atomics, the readability & maintainability win by relying on inline functions instead of long macros, potentially with multiple eval hazards, or contortions like ILIST_INCLUDE_DEFINITIONS is significant. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
