| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Subject: | Re: better atomics - v0.2 |
| Date: | 2013-11-19 15:34:59 |
| Message-ID: | 20131119153459.GB19293@alap2.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-11-19 15:37:35 | Re: better atomics - v0.2 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2013-11-19 15:34:15 | Re: better atomics - v0.2 |