| From: | Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)tigerdata(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Remove unused #include's in src/backend/commands/* |
| Date: | 2025-10-09 15:08:39 |
| Message-ID: | CAJ7c6TP1E5RcEbPLoM7bBpqfiscL1147CzTADDO1P9qt5ftJDQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Álvaro,
> I wonder how many of these changes pass the compilation only because the
> header you're removing is indirectly being included via another header.
> In this particular case, it's because slot.h includes walreceiver.h
> which includes walsender.h, so this removal has no effect.
Hm.... on the flip side if the file is already included what's the
point in the second #include? It doesn't do anything and is redundant,
isn't it? At least my text editor highlights it as such (because
clangd tells it so). This is not a huge problem of course, just a bit
distracting.
If the idea is to always have an explicit list of all the includes (no
indirect ones) I think we may end up with pretty long lists, and I
don't instantly see value in this to be honest.
--
Best regards,
Aleksander Alekseev
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jacob Champion | 2025-10-09 15:09:07 | Re: Thoughts on a "global" client configuration? |
| Previous Message | Sami Imseih | 2025-10-09 15:07:17 | Re: Add mode column to pg_stat_progress_vacuum |