Message-ID: <4370bec0-df13-40f3-92ee-75974182e41f@vondra.me>
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2026 23:41:47 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: s/pg_attribute_always_inline/pg_always_inline/?
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
 Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
References: <bqqdehahpoa36igpictuqyn2s2mexk3t3ehidh2ffd2slb35e5@rzgksuiszgbg>
 <56def459-2b95-42bc-b4e4-26e57f08b064@eisentraut.org>
 <ovpakrvg3mfwyumhkrxjgnwfb75jo534booip7pqrq7cjt4orj@vydvdlbscnx4>
 <CAH2-WznHSUJcV47OhoisvABjN2xjVOYh0_bRagUE6ir5zGJzow@mail.gmail.com>
 <adee40b0-ee0d-40a8-abe7-61784db3ec6c@vondra.me>
 <CAH2-Wzm3ev6uGsf4QddpaZamzsb3ATvanggEHxnhRSkdd52bnA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAH2-Wzm3ev6uGsf4QddpaZamzsb3ATvanggEHxnhRSkdd52bnA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/4370bec0-df13-40f3-92ee-75974182e41f%40vondra.me>
Precedence: bulk

On 6/12/26 18:10, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2026 at 11:23 AM Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me> wrote:
>> I'm not sure about pg_mustinline. It seems weird to me, and I'm not sure
>> saving the 3 characters is worth it, pg_always_inline seems better.
> 
> I'm not going to make a fuss about it.
> 
>> Yeah, we should not do such weird stuff just because of unnecessarily
>> long attribute names.
> 
> Right. Basically, I don't want to be told that I must completely
> change the order of function definitions because I used
> pg_[attribute]_always_inline. It's just not reasonable to impose that
> requirement on patch authors.
> 
>> Question - do we plan to do this in master only, or was the plan to
>> backpatch the change? I'm not sure if these labels are used outside the
>> core code, that might be an issue for backpatching.
> 
> I think that we should bite the bullet and backpatch. I count only 17
> instances of pg_attribute_always_inline on the master branch.
> 
> Some extensions will no longer build against the backbranches if we go
> this way. However, extension authors should find it easy to work
> around this on an ad-hoc basis. They're going to have to work around
> it sooner or later, so we might as well favor the new spelling.
> 

So, what shall we do about this? I've been looking at the v29 of the
index prefetching patch series, which is using this attribute in a bunch
of places. And that reminded me of this thread.

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.


regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra