Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM> writes:
> Gevik Babakhani napsal(a):
>> I have not investigated this yet. But I am very interested to know what the
>> advantages would be to "upgrade" the code to C99 standards.
> I think replace macros with inline functions. It brings to ability to
> monitor them for example by DTrace.
C99's definition of inline functions really sucks --- it's awkward to
use, and essentially doesn't work at all for declaring inlines in header
files, which would be the main use if we wanted to replace macros with
inlines. I'm much happier using gcc's version of inline where we really
need it (which is not that many places anyway).
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Simon Riggs||Date: 2008-09-25 12:25:28|
|Subject: Re: Transaction Snapshots and Hot Standby|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2008-09-25 12:05:07|
|Subject: Re: Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches (for CommitFest:Sep)|
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2008-09-25 12:19:14|
|Subject: Re: Minor bug/inconveniance with restore from backup, using PITR base backup and archived wal files |
|Previous:||From: Peter Eisentraut||Date: 2008-09-25 12:09:59|
|Subject: Re: Debian packages for Postgres 8.2|