Re: htup header reorganization breaks many extension modules

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: htup header reorganization breaks many extension modules
Date: 2012-09-26 13:42:11
Message-ID: 1348666692-sup-1763@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Excerpts from Peter Eisentraut's message of mar sep 25 21:30:59 -0300 2012:
> I haven't followed the details of the htup header reorganization, but I
> have noticed that a number of external extension modules will be broken
> because of the move of GETSTRUCT() and to a lesser extent
> heap_getattr(). Of course some #ifdefs can fix that, but it seems
> annoying to make everyone do that. Maybe this could be reconsidered to
> reduce the impact on other projects.

Hmm. My original patch didn't have this problem :-( What it did was to
keep htup.h the "everything needed to work on tuples" header; so
external modules would have not become broken. I didn't realize this at
the time, which is why I didn't argue to keep it that way instead of
having the new header contain most innards.

I guess we could rename the headers, so that htup.h is what's now called
htup_details.h, and htup_basics.h for what's currently htup.h. This
would have a lot of fallout in core code, but eliminate impact on
external modules.

That said, I am not really sure that I want to promise header
compatibility forever.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2012-09-26 13:42:34 Re: Doc patch to note which system catalogs have oids
Previous Message Andres Freund 2012-09-26 13:21:42 Re: pg_reorg in core?