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

All,

* Stephen Frost (sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net) wrote:
> * 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.

And, done.

Thanks!

Stephen