| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: remove pg_restrict workaround | 
| Date: | 2025-10-29 07:03:53 | 
| Message-ID: | f2482585-1be0-4545-b7d5-1256f525be8c@eisentraut.org | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
On 15.10.25 15:58, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> writes:
>> When in C11 mode, MSVC supports the standard "restrict" keyword, so we
>> don't need the workaround with using "pg_restrict" instead anymore.
>> (Just for clarification, restrict is a C99 feature, but MSVC only
>> accepts it properly in C11 mode.)  So I'm proposing to remove that
>> workaround here, so that code can use the standard restrict keyword
>> without having to worry about the alternative spelling.
> 
> Won't this break extensions that are using pg_restrict?  Sure, they
> could update their code, but then maybe it wouldn't work anymore
> against previous branches.  Seems like it'd be better to leave
> pg_restrict in place (for awhile anyway) but always #define it
> as "restrict".  I don't mind ceasing to use it within our own tree
> though.
Committed with a backward compatibility define.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chao Li | 2025-10-29 07:05:42 | Re: Optimize LISTEN/NOTIFY | 
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-10-29 07:02:08 | Re: Question about InvalidatePossiblyObsoleteSlot() |