| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Julien Rouhaud <julien(dot)rouhaud(at)dalibo(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: split builtins.h to quote.h |
| Date: | 2014-12-13 16:00:56 |
| Message-ID: | 4356.1418486456@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 11/08/2014 12:37 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Well, yes :) I missed that. Note that I am leaning to Robert's
>> direction as well to do a clear separation... Now if the final
>> consensus is different, then let's use the patch attached that puts
>> the SQL functions to builtins.h, and the rest in quote.h.
> I am unlcear about what the consensus is on this, and don't have strong
> feelings either way. Do we need a vote? It's not of earth-shattering
> importance, but my slight inclination would be to do the minimally
> invasive thing where there is disagreement.
Well, the minimally invasive thing would be to reject the patch
altogether. Do we really need this?
In a quick look, the patch seems to result in strictly increasing the
number of #include's needed, which ISTM is not a positive sign for a
refactoring, especially given the number of files it hits. If there
had been some #include's removed as well, I'd be happier.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2014-12-13 16:11:04 | Re: pg_basebackup vs. Windows and tablespaces |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2014-12-13 15:51:29 | Re: split builtins.h to quote.h |