Re: Ordering of header file inclusion

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Ordering of header file inclusion
Date: 2019-10-19 21:14:19
Message-ID: 20191019211419.h6wjsash5tbkq6yk@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2019-10-19 21:50:03 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> diff --git a/contrib/bloom/blcost.c b/contrib/bloom/blcost.c
> index f9fe57f..6224735 100644
> --- a/contrib/bloom/blcost.c
> +++ b/contrib/bloom/blcost.c
> @@ -12,10 +12,10 @@
> */
> #include "postgres.h"
>
> +#include "bloom.h"
> #include "fmgr.h"
> #include "utils/selfuncs.h"
>
> -#include "bloom.h"
>
> /*
> * Estimate cost of bloom index scan.
>
> This class of change I don't like.
>
> The existing arrangement keeps "other" header files separate from the
> header file of the module itself. It seems useful to keep that separate.

If we were to do so, we ought to put bloom.h first and clearly seperated
out, not last, as the former makes the bug of the the header not being
standalone more obvious.

I'm -1 on having a policy of putting the headers separate though, I feel
that's too much work, and there's too many cases where it's not that
clear which header that should be.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Euler Taveira 2019-10-19 22:23:36 Re: Add a GUC variable that control logical replication
Previous Message Nikolay Samokhvalov 2019-10-19 21:04:43 Re: Backport "WITH ... AS MATERIALIZED" syntax to <12?