| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 21:37:32 |
| Message-ID: | 20131119213732.GX28149@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 04:34:59PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> 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.
Oh, man, my fastgetattr() macro is going to be simplified. All my good
work gets rewritten. ;-)
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2013-11-19 21:39:19 | Re: better atomics - v0.2 |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2013-11-19 21:33:50 | Re: pre-commit triggers |