Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Peter Geoghegan <peter@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> The first (controversy A) is that I have added a new
>> piece of infrastructure, pg_always_inline, which, as the name
>> suggests, is a portable way of insisting that a function should be
>> invariably inlined.
> I don't have a problem with the idea of a pg_always_inline, but I'm
> wondering what sort of fallback mechanism you propose.
There is no compiler anywhere that implements "always inline", unless
you are talking about a macro. "inline" is a hint and nothing more,
and if you think you can force it you are mistaken. So this controversy
is easily resolved: we do not need any such construct.
The real question is whether we should accept a patch that is a
performance loss when the compiler fails to inline some reasonably
simple function. I think that would depend on the actual numbers
involved, so we'd need to see data before making a decision.
>> The second
>> possible point of contention (controversy B) is that I have jettisoned
>> various protections against bad qsort implementations that I believe
>> are a legacy of when we used the system qsort pre-2006, that can no
>> longer be justified.
No objection to that one, I think, as long as you've verified that our
implementation is in fact okay about these things.
regards, tom lane
