Re: s/pg_attribute_always_inline/pg_always_inline/?

On 7/9/26 02:14, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Thu, 9 Jul 2026 at 09:42, Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me> wrote:
>>> I guess we should just commit that, so unless someone objects soon I'll
>>> just do that. ISTM the agreement is to backpatch this too.
>
>> How about just backpatching the new macro and leaving the old one in
>> place back branches?
>
> +1. Breaking valid code in released branches is unfriendly.
>

OK, that sounds reasonable. So in the backbranches we'd have both
pg_always_inline and the original pg_attriute_always_inline.

Does "backpatching the new macro" mean we'd also adjust all existing
places to use the new macro or not? I mean, we could backpatch just the
bit in c.h. I plan to adjust the places, to minimize possible conflicts
when backpatching other stuff.

regards

--
Tomas Vondra