Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1whcPy-000KXC-0V for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 09 Jul 2026 00:15:06 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1whcPw-00AAxG-2R for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 09 Jul 2026 00:15:05 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1whcPw-00AAx8-1W for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 09 Jul 2026 00:15:05 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1whcPu-00000000N8Z-18wn for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 09 Jul 2026 00:15:04 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.18.1/8.18.1) with ESMTP id 6690En1a2391699; Wed, 8 Jul 2026 20:14:49 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: David Rowley cc: Tomas Vondra , Peter Geoghegan , Andres Freund , Peter Eisentraut , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: s/pg_attribute_always_inline/pg_always_inline/? In-reply-to: References: <56def459-2b95-42bc-b4e4-26e57f08b064@eisentraut.org> <4370bec0-df13-40f3-92ee-75974182e41f@vondra.me> Comments: In-reply-to David Rowley message dated "Thu, 09 Jul 2026 12:02:03 +1200" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2391697.1783556089.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2026 20:14:49 -0400 Message-ID: <2391698.1783556089@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk David Rowley writes: > On Thu, 9 Jul 2026 at 09:42, Tomas Vondra 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. regards, tom lane