On 7/9/26 02:14, Tom Lane wrote: > David Rowley <[email protected]> writes: >> On Thu, 9 Jul 2026 at 09:42, Tomas Vondra <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I guess we should just commit that, so unless someone objects soon I'll >>> just do that. ISTM the agreement is to backpatch this too. > >> How about just backpatching the new macro and leaving the old one in >> place back branches? > > +1. Breaking valid code in released branches is unfriendly. >
OK, that sounds reasonable. So in the backbranches we'd have both pg_always_inline and the original pg_attriute_always_inline. Does "backpatching the new macro" mean we'd also adjust all existing places to use the new macro or not? I mean, we could backpatch just the bit in c.h. I plan to adjust the places, to minimize possible conflicts when backpatching other stuff. regards -- Tomas Vondra
