On 8 September 2011 10:22, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> If you believe the idea I suggested a few days ago that we ought to try
> to push basic typedefs into a separate set of headers, then this could
> be the first instance of that, which would lead to naming it something
> like "datatype/timestamp.h". If that seems premature, then I guess it
> ought to go into utils/, but then we need some other name because
> utils/timestamp.h is taken.
The separate headers for basic typedefs makes perfect sense to me.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: daveg||Date: 2011-09-08 00:55:59|
|Subject: Re: FATAL: lock AccessShareLock on object 0/1260/0 is already held|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-09-08 00:22:44|
|Subject: Moving core timestamp typedefs/macros somewhere else|