Re: better atomics - v0.2

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 04:34:59PM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
> 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.

Oh, man, my fastgetattr() macro is going to be simplified.  All my good
work gets rewritten.  ;-)

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
 + Everyone has their own god. +