Re: includedir_internal headers are not self-contained

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Christoph Berg <cb(at)df7cb(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: includedir_internal headers are not self-contained
Date: 2014-04-29 14:45:34
Message-ID: 535FBB0E.1020701@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 04/29/2014 02:56 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 04/28/2014 10:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> I have to admit it's been a few years since I've had to play with
>>> WAL_DEBUG, so I don't really remember what I was trying to do. But I
>>> don't see any real argument that three slash-separated numbers will be
>>> more useful to somebody who has to dig through this than a pathname,
>>> even an approximate pathname, and I think people wanting to figure out
>>> approximately where they need to look to find the data affected by the
>>> WAL record will be pretty common among people decoding WAL records.
>>
>> Meh. I still think it's a bad idea to have CATALOG_VERSION_NO getting
>> compiled into libpgcommon.a, where there will be no way to cross-check
>> that it matches anything. But I guess I'm losing this argument.
>
> FWIW, I agree it's a bad idea. I just have no better ideas (and
> haven't given it much thought anyway).
>
>

Sure sounds like a bad idea.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2014-04-29 15:00:11 Re: includedir_internal headers are not self-contained
Previous Message Marko Tiikkaja 2014-04-29 14:40:05 Re: pg_dump --pretty-print-views