| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: embedded list v2 |
| Date: | 2012-09-28 23:39:03 |
| Message-ID: | 17859.1348875543@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> The reason I had the header declare DEFINE_ILIST_FUNCTIONS (or rather
> ILIST_USE_DEFINITION back then) instead of reusing USE_INLINE directly is that
> it makes it easier to locally change a "module" to not inlining which makes
> testing the !USE_INLINE case easier. Does anybody think this is worth
> something? I have no strong feelings but found it convenient.
Right offhand it doesn't seem like it really gains that much even for
that use-case. You'd end up editing the include file either way, just
slightly differently.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2012-09-28 23:42:49 | Re: embedded list v2 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-09-28 23:25:42 | Generalizing range-constraint detection in clauselist_selectivity |