Subject: Re: s/pg_attribute_always_inline/pg_always_inline/?

From: Tomas Vondra <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2026 02:05:43 +0200

On 7/9/26 02:14, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Rowley <[email-masked]> writes:
>> On Thu, 9 Jul 2026 at 09:42, Tomas Vondra <[email-masked]> wrote:
>>> I guess we should just commit that, so unless someone objects soon I'll
>>> just do that. ISTM the agreement is to backpatch this too.
> 
>> How about just backpatching the new macro and leaving the old one in
>> place back branches?
> 
> +1.  Breaking valid code in released branches is unfriendly.
> 

OK, that sounds reasonable. So in the backbranches we'd have both
pg_always_inline and the original pg_attriute_always_inline.

Does "backpatching the new macro" mean we'd also adjust all existing
places to use the new macro or not? I mean, we could backpatch just the
bit in c.h. I plan to adjust the places, to minimize possible conflicts
when backpatching other stuff.

regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra

---

From: Tom Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 09 Jul 2026 20:14:12 -0400

> when backpatching other stuff.

I think it'd be sufficient to add the new macro to the old branches.
The point of back-patching at all, I think, is to save ourselves
work if we have to back-patch some new code that uses the new style.

			regards, tom lane