Re: [HACKERS] Candidate for local inline function?

2017-04-03 Thread Andres Freund
On 2017-03-17 15:29:27 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > > On 2017-03-17 15:17:33 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > >> Why do we warn of a hazard here instead of eliminating said hazard > >> with a static inline function

Re: [HACKERS] Candidate for local inline function?

2017-03-17 Thread Tom Lane
Kevin Grittner writes: > Why do we warn of a hazard here instead of eliminating said hazard > with a static inline function declaration in executor.h? > /* > * ExecEvalExpr was formerly a function containing a switch statement; > * now it's just a macro invoking the function

Re: [HACKERS] Candidate for local inline function?

2017-03-17 Thread Kevin Grittner
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 3:23 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2017-03-17 15:17:33 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: >> Why do we warn of a hazard here instead of eliminating said hazard >> with a static inline function declaration in executor.h? > > Presumably because it was written

Re: [HACKERS] Candidate for local inline function?

2017-03-17 Thread Andres Freund
Hi Kevin, On 2017-03-17 15:17:33 -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote: > Why do we warn of a hazard here instead of eliminating said hazard > with a static inline function declaration in executor.h? Presumably because it was written long before we started relying on inline functions :/ > /* > *

[HACKERS] Candidate for local inline function?

2017-03-17 Thread Kevin Grittner
Why do we warn of a hazard here instead of eliminating said hazard with a static inline function declaration in executor.h? /* * ExecEvalExpr was formerly a function containing a switch statement; * now it's just a macro invoking the function pointed to by an ExprState * node. Beware of