Re: Rename nodes/relation.h => nodes/pathnodes.h ?

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
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
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

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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?