Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6
Date
Msg-id 20150804195541.GF32119@awork2.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2015-08-04 15:45:44 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm not sure that there's any great urgency about changing the instances
> that exist now; the real point of this discussion is that we will allow
> new code to use static inlines in headers.

I agree that we don't have to (and probably shouldn't) make the required
configure changes and change definitions.  But I do think some of the
current macro usage deserves to be cleaned up at some point. I,
somewhere during 9.4 or 9.5, redefined some of the larger macros into
static inlines and it both reduced the binary size and gave minor
performance benefits.

- Andres



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6
Next
From: Jeff Janes
Date:
Subject: Re: FSM versus GIN pending list bloat