Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: splitting htup.h

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: splitting htup.h
Date: 2012-08-29 15:47:14
Message-ID: 11111.1346255234@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar ago 28 17:27:51 -0400 2012:
>> Also, is there any reason to consider just moving those defs into
>> heapam.h, instead of inventing a new header?  I'm not sure if there's
>> any principled distinction between heap.h and heapam.h, or any
>> significant differences between their sets of consumers.

> [ yeah, there's quite a few files that would need heap.h but not heapam.h ]

OK, scratch that thought then.  So we seem to be down to choosing a new
name for what we're going to take out of htup.h.  If you don't like
heap.h, maybe something like heap_tuple.h?  I'm not terribly excited
about it either way though.  Any other ideas out there?

			regards, tom lane


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2012-08-29 15:54:03
Subject: Re: splitting htup.h
Previous:From: Dimitri FontaineDate: 2012-08-29 15:46:38
Subject: Re: multi-master pgbench?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group