Re: optimizer/clauses.h needn't include access/htup.h

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: optimizer/clauses.h needn't include access/htup.h
Date: 2020-11-23 22:00:41
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> writes:
> It was only needed between these:
> commit a8677e3ff6bb8ef78a9ba676faa647bba237b1c4
> commit f09346a9c6218dd239fdf3a79a729716c0d305bd

Hm, you're right. Removed.

> I noticed while looking at "what includes what" and wondered if some of these
> are kind of "modularity violations".

Yeah. I've ranted before that we ought to have some clearer idea of
module layering within the backend, and avoid cross-header inclusions
that would break the layering. This particular case didn't really
do so, I suppose, since htup.h would surely be on a lower level than
the optimizer. But it still seems nicer to not have that inclusion.

Anyway, if you're feeling motivated to explore a more wide-ranging
refactoring, by all means have a go at it.

regards, tom lane

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2020-11-23 22:02:55 Re: "as quickly as possible" (was: remove spurious CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY wait)
Previous Message Daniel Verite 2020-11-23 21:58:34 Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq