Re: [HACKERS] palloc.h again

>
> Michael Meskes <Michael_Meskes(at)topmail(dot)de> writes:
> > I just noticed that the palloc.h problem still exists. That is we do not
> > install utils/mcxt.h but is included by palloc.h.
>
> I was hoping that Jan would try to reduce the number of include files
> that are now needed by palloc(). But definitely something will have
> to be done about this before we release.

Hmmm - how should I reduce the number of include files? All
the palloc stuff is macroized now, so using palloc() results
in MemoryContextAlloc() calls. Reduces one brain dead
function call (the old versions of palloc() etc. simply did
that - wasting one stack frame).

Thus, we definitely need mcxt.h where we need palloc() and
that's why I've put the include of mcxt.h into palloc.h.

What I'm in doubt about is, why (if) we don't want to install
mcxt.h? It is required (since my changes) by every user
built backend-loadable module. So it should be installed.

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#======================================== jwieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) #