Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2015-08-04 15:20:14 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> OK, so do we want to rip out all instances of the static inline dance
>> in favor of more straightforward coding?  Do we then shut pandemelon
>> and any other affected buildfarm members down as unsupported, or what?

> I think all that happens is that they'll log a couple more warnings
> about defined but unused static functions. configure already defines
> inline away if not supported.

Right.  We had already concluded that this would be safe to do, it's
just a matter of somebody being motivated to do it.

I'm not sure that there's any great urgency about changing the instances
that exist now; the real point of this discussion is that we will allow
new code to use static inlines in headers.
        regards, tom lane