Re: Patch: Remove gcc dependency in definition of inline functions

On 12/15/2009 9:42 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:34 PM, Kurt Harriman<harriman(at)acm(dot)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.
>
> ...Robert

Hmm, this sample of 3 has a lot of variance now.
When I referred to "consensus", perhaps that was optimism?

In fact I cannot disagree with Robert's comment.

Regards,
... kurt