| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 23:42:49 |
| Message-ID: | 201209290142.50065.andres@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Saturday, September 29, 2012 01:39:03 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> 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.
Well, with USE_INLINE you have to recompile the whole backend because you
otherwise easily end up with strange incompatibilities between files.
Andres
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2012-09-28 23:54:13 | Re: Generalizing range-constraint detection in clauselist_selectivity |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-09-28 23:39:03 | Re: embedded list v2 |