| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Is "Window" really safe as a global typedef name? |
| Date: | 2008-12-20 08:13:34 |
| Message-ID: | 494CA92E.1000101@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm looking at the window-functions patch and wondering just what kind
> of trouble we'll get into if we leave its new plan node type named just
> "Window". I've already confirmed that this is a direct conflict against
> a typedef in <X11/X.h>, and I'd be not the least bit surprised if it's
> used in even-more-popular system headers on Windows or Darwin. Now
> maybe you could always get away with not including such headers together
> with plannodes.h, but it sure looks like problems waiting to happen.
>
> So I'm thinking we'd better rename it, but I'm not coming up with
> anything good; the best I can do after a long day is "EvalWindow",
> and that doesn't seem particularly inspired. Any suggestions?
EvalWindow sounds like a function in src/backend/executor/.
WindowAgg?
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2008-12-20 08:18:37 | Re: Is "Window" really safe as a global typedef name? |
| Previous Message | Sergey E. Koposov | 2008-12-20 07:34:22 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: SQL/MED catalog manipulation facilities This doesn't do any |