On 2015-08-04 16:55:12 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > On 2015-08-04 15:45:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I'm not sure that there's any great urgency about changing the instances > >> that exist now; the real point of this discussion is that we will allow > >> new code to use static inlines in headers. > > > > I agree that we don't have to (and probably shouldn't) make the required > > configure changes and change definitions. But I do think some of the > > current macro usage deserves to be cleaned up at some point. I, > > somewhere during 9.4 or 9.5, redefined some of the larger macros into > > static inlines and it both reduced the binary size and gave minor > > performance benefits. > > We typically recommend that people write their new code like the > existing code. If we say that the standards for new code are now > different from old code in this one way, I don't think that's going to > be very helpful to anyone.
I'm coming around to actually changing more code initially. While I don't particularly buy the severity of the "make it look like existing code" issue, I do think it'll be rather confusing to have code dependent on PG_USE_INLINE when it's statically defined. So unless somebody protests I'm going to prepare (and commit after posting) a patch to rip out the bits of code that currently depend on PG_USE_INLINE. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
