Re: Should contrib modules install .h files?

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Should contrib modules install .h files?
Date: 2018-08-02 16:35:04
Message-ID: 20180802163504.kjcp7qjiuwupndsp@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2018-08-02 10:54:00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Also, "near future" means "before Monday". I don't want to ship beta3
> with this in place if we end up reverting later, because it'd mean
> thrashing packagers' file manifests, which they won't appreciate.
> It might be best to revert in v11 for now, and then we can put it back
> after beta3 if there's agreement that the questions are satisfactorily
> resolved.

+1

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2018-08-02 16:42:42 Re: Making "COPY partitioned_table FROM" faster
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-08-02 16:23:41 Fallout from PQhost() semantics changes