On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 1:00 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> On 11/08/2014 12:37 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> Well, yes :) I missed that. Note that I am leaning to Robert's
>>> direction as well to do a clear separation... Now if the final
>>> consensus is different, then let's use the patch attached that puts
>>> the SQL functions to builtins.h, and the rest in quote.h.
>
>> I am unlcear about what the consensus is on this, and don't have strong
>> feelings either way. Do we need a vote? It's not of earth-shattering
>> importance, but my slight inclination would be to do the minimally
>> invasive thing where there is disagreement.
>
> Well, the minimally invasive thing would be to reject the patch
> altogether. Do we really need this?
>
> In a quick look, the patch seems to result in strictly increasing the
> number of #include's needed, which ISTM is not a positive sign for a
> refactoring, especially given the number of files it hits. If there
> had been some #include's removed as well, I'd be happier.
Let's do so then. I marked it as rejected.
--
Michael