Re: On the warpath again about ill-considered inclusion nests

Tom,

* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> Well, if you *only* move RowSecurityDesc and not RowSecurityPolicy,
> okay, but that seems a bit useless/inconsistent if I'm reading it
> right that RowSecurityDesc contains a List of RowSecurityPolicy structs.

Yes, good point.

> What seems possibly saner is to just remove the header inclusion in rel.h
> and declare the new Relation field similarly to the way we handle
> rd_fdwroutine and some other fields there:
>
> /* use "struct" here to avoid needing to include rowsecurity.h: */
> struct RowSecurityDesc *rsdesc; /* Row-security policy, or NULL */

Makes sense to me.

> And while you are at it, how about renaming "rsdesc" to "rd_rsdesc"?
> The fact that whoever put in trigdesc didn't get the memo about the
> naming convention for Relation fields doesn't excuse you from following
> it.

Ok. I tend to be bad and mistakenly consider existing code 'gospel'.
Will fix.

> PS: The comments for struct RowSecurityPolicy could stand to be improved.

Understood, will do so.

Thanks!

Stephen