Re: [PATCH 1/2 v3] [libpq] rework sigpipe-handling macros

From: Jeremy Kerr <jk(at)ozlabs(dot)org>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 v3] [libpq] rework sigpipe-handling macros
Date: 2009-07-15 00:42:07
Message-ID: 200907151042.07891.jk@ozlabs.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi, Alvaro,

> Does this work in compilers other than GCC? I think we use some
> kludges to protect against them ... see pg_list.h for the canonical
> example.

As I understand it, we're not using static inlines in pg_list.h to
prevent multiple objects from exporting the same symbols if the
functions don't end up as 'static inline' (ie, because the compiler
doesn't support that).

In this case, we're only compiling the inlines into a single object, so
even if the compiler doesn't support inlines, we'll just end up with
out-of-line function calls, which should work too.

However, this is only my assumption about those compilers (I don't have
access to other compilers to test); happy to fix these up if the inlines
won't work.

Cheers,

Jeremy

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Stark 2009-07-15 00:50:10 Re: Index-only scans
Previous Message Ron Mayer 2009-07-15 00:21:26 Re: Index-only scans