Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6

On 2015-08-06 12:29:15 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > I had to split of three things: LOCKMASK, the individual lock levels and
> > xl_standby_lock to be able to prohibit lock.h to be included by frontend
> > code. lockdefs.h works for me, counter proposals?
> >
> > There weren't any places that needed additional lock.h includes.
>
> Ah, but that's because you cheated and didn't remove the include from
> namespace.h ...

Well, it's not included from frontend code, so I didn't see the need?
Going through all the backend code and replacing lock.h by lockdefs.h
and some other includes doesn't seem particularly beneficial to me.

FWIW, removing it from namespace.h is relatively easy. It starts to get
a lot more noisy when you want to touch heapam.h.

> > diff --git a/src/include/storage/lockdefs.h b/src/include/storage/lockdefs.h
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000..bfbcdba
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/src/include/storage/lockdefs.h
> > @@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
> > +/*-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > + *
> > + * lockdefs.h
> > + * Frontend exposed parts of postgres' low level lock mechanism
> > + *
> > + * The split between lockdefs.h and lock.h is not very principled.
>
> No kidding!

Do you have a good suggestion about the split? I wanted to expose the
minimal amount necessary, and those were the ones.