| From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: split builtins.h to quote.h |
| Date: | 2014-10-11 22:05:28 |
| Message-ID: | 20141011220528.GA51172@tornado.leadboat.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:43:46PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-10-11 17:19:27 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 10:44:39AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > Started a new thread to raise awareness.
> >
> > > Ref: this comes from
> > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAB7nPqR1iVd5r_QN_ngmkBOLQmAGBOsJ4WNPo8eybNn6WE_Kdw@mail.gmail.com
> >
> > Thanks. You can assume I'm -1 on every header split proposal not driving a
> > substantial compile duration improvement:
>
> I don't know. Isn't it, from a aesthetic POV, wrong to have all that
> stuff in builtins.h? The stuff split of really doesn't seem to belong
> there?
Yes, the status quo is aesthetically wrong. Still, any clarity improvement
from this split is vaporous. The cost of breaking module builds is real.
> I personally wouldn't object plaing a #include for the splitof file into
> builtin.h to address backward compat concerns. Would imo still be an
> improvement.
Agreed. If the patch preserved compatibility by having builtins.h include
quote.h, I would not object.
nm
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-10-11 22:09:57 | Re: split builtins.h to quote.h |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-10-11 22:01:58 | Re: No toast table for pg_shseclabel but for pg_seclabel |