| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6 |
| Date: | 2015-08-17 19:04:25 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZHy6P4PFbMQCd_ALeY73Sc_m_qiFbtM6Hh9U4Ch8sOiQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> On 2015-08-17 12:30:56 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> - The possibility that may repeatedly break #define FRONTEND
>> compilation when we add static inline functions, where instead adding
>> macros would not have caused breakage, thus resulting in continual
>> tinkering with the header files.
>
> Again, that's really independent. Inlines have that problem, even with
> STATIC_IF_INLINE. C.f. MemoryContextSwitch() and a9baeb361d.
Inlines, yes, but macros don't.
I'm not saying we shouldn't do this, but I *am* saying that we need to
be prepared to treat breaking FRONTEND compilation as a problem, not
just today and tomorrow, but way off into the future. It's not at all
a stretch to think that we could still be hitting fallout from these
changes in 2-3 years time.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2015-08-17 19:04:40 | Re: Test code is worth the space |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2015-08-17 19:02:06 | Re: Configure with thread sanitizer fails the thread test |