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
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
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
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 :/
> /*
> *
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