Re: FullTransactionId changes are causing portability issues

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2019-05-23 14:05:19 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think you're vastly overstating the case for refusing support for this.
>> Adding "#ifndef FRONTEND" to relevant headers isn't a huge amount of work
>> --- it's certainly far less of a problem than the Microsoft-droppings
>> we've had to put in in so many places. The only real issue in my mind
>> is the lack of buildfarm support for detecting that we need to do so.

> Well, doing it for every single inline function is pretty annoying, just
> from a bulkiness perspective.

Oh, I certainly wasn't suggesting we do that.

> And figuring out exactly which inline
> function needs this isn't easy without something that actually shows the
> problem.

... which is why we need a buildfarm animal that shows the problem.
We had some, up until the C99 move.

If the only practical way to detect the issue were to run some ancient
platform or other, I'd tend to agree with you that it's not worth the
trouble. But if we can spot it just by using -fkeep-inline-functions
on an animal or two, I think it's a reasonable thing to keep supporting
the case for a few years more.

regards, tom lane