Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 9:03 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pe...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers