Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: PostgreSQL future ideas

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM>
Cc: Gevik Babakhani <pgdev(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, "'PGSQL Hackers'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL future ideas
Date: 2008-09-25 12:14:46
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-generalpgsql-hackers
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 RiggsDate: 2008-09-25 12:25:28
Subject: Re: Transaction Snapshots and Hot Standby
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2008-09-25 12:05:07
Subject: Re: Proposal of SE-PostgreSQL patches (for CommitFest:Sep)

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 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 EisentrautDate: 2008-09-25 12:09:59
Subject: Re: Debian packages for Postgres 8.2

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group