| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: Rename nodes/relation.h => nodes/pathnodes.h ? | 
| Date: | 2019-01-29 15:31:39 | 
| Message-ID: | 28718.1548775899@sss.pgh.pa.us | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2019-Jan-28, Tom Lane wrote:
>> (There was some mention of trying to split relation.h into multiple
>> files, but I fail to see any advantage in that.)
> Hmm, nodes/relation.h includes lots of other files and is widely
> included.
Yup, that's why I'm trying to reduce the number of files that include it,
over in the other thread.
> If we can split it usefully, I vote for that.  However, I
> failed to find any concrete proposal for doing that.  I don't have one
> ATM but I'd like to keep the door open for it happening at some point.
The door's always open, of course, but I don't see any point in waiting
around for a hypothetical redesign.
> I do like planner/pathnodes.h as a name, FWIW.
Yeah, I think I'll go with pathnodes.h.  We'd probably keep using that
for the Path node typedefs themselves, even if somebody comes up with
a design for splitting out other things.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christoph Berg | 2019-01-29 15:46:06 | Re: [PATCH] Log PostgreSQL version number on startup | 
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-01-29 15:28:28 | Re: Why does execReplication.c lock tuples? |