Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 16:34:59 +0100
From: Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
 Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
 Ants Aasma <ants@cybertec.at>
Subject: Re: better atomics - v0.2
Message-ID: <20131119153459.GB19293@alap2.anarazel.de>
References: 
 <CA+TgmoYBW+ux5-8Ja=Mcyuy8=VXAnVRHp3Kess6Pn3DMXAPAEA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20131115200416.GH5489@awork2.anarazel.de>
 <CA+Tgmobhd5hwC+NzCfn2p1MO8EHZjhNgFQyLcA-cjRtSJzZJ6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <8392.1384873040@sss.pgh.pa.us> <528B801D.5010609@gmx.net>
 <9178.1384875024@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9178.1384875024@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

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


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers