Re: better atomics - v0.2

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