Re: SPITupleTable members missing in docs

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Subject: Re: SPITupleTable members missing in docs
Date: 2019-07-12 15:04:39
Message-ID: 4584.1562943879@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs

Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> writes:
> To take into account Tom's comment, I'd suggest a middle ground by
> commenting a public and private part explicitely in the struct, something
> like:

> typedef struct {
> /* PUBLIC members to be used by callers ... */
> ...
> ...
> /* PRIVATE members, not intended for external usage ... */
> ...
> } ... ;

One problem is that the members we've retroactively decided are "public"
are in the middle of the struct :-(.

But it occurs to me that there's no good reason we couldn't re-order the
members, as long as we only do so on HEAD and not in released versions.
That would make it a bit less inconsistent and easier to add labels
such as you suggest.

> Note: I'm probaly not a member of the pgdoc list, so the delivery may fail
> there.

FYI, I believe the current policy is that as long as you're subscribed
to at least one PG list you can post to any of them.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fabien COELHO 2019-07-12 15:59:56 Re: SPITupleTable members missing in docs
Previous Message Fabien COELHO 2019-07-12 14:56:31 Re: SPITupleTable members missing in docs