| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, samay sharma <smilingsamay(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Inconsistencies around defining FRONTEND |
| Date: | 2022-08-23 22:58:50 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYu_Oga-hk+oexmcNDXfqXgK-LgT+5+q1ZPn+0Nd43g0w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 5:56 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Actually, I think we could fix these pretty easily too. See attached.
>
> Hmm, do these headers still pass headerscheck/cpluspluscheck?
I didn't check before sending the patch, but now I ran it locally, and
I did get failures from both, but they all seem to be unrelated.
Mainly, it's sad that I don't have Python.h, but I didn't configure
with python, so whatever.
> I might quibble a bit with the exact placement of the #ifndef FRONTEND
> tests, but overall this looks pretty plausible.
Yep, that's arguable. In particular, should the redo functions also be
protected by #ifdef FRONTEND?
I'd be more than thrilled if you wanted to adjust this to taste and
apply it, barring objections from others of course.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-08-23 23:24:45 | Re: Inconsistencies around defining FRONTEND |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2022-08-23 22:53:52 | Re: sockaddr_un.sun_len vs. reality |