Re: split TOAST support out of postgres.h

From: Nikita Malakhov <hukutoc(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: split TOAST support out of postgres.h
Date: 2022-12-29 07:39:34
Message-ID: CAN-LCVM4xnwJz7N7j=Dy=HiAXn-Af7hStr-Z5VSjMK9YzzTneA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

I've thought about this while working on Pluggable TOAST and 64-bit
TOAST value ID myself. Agree with #2 to seem the best of the above.
There are not so many places where a new header should be included.

On Wed, Dec 28, 2022 at 6:08 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> > ... Then we could either
>
> > 1) Include varatt.h in postgres.h, similar to elog.h and palloc.h. That
> > way we clean up the files a bit but don't change any external interfaces.
>
> > 2) Just let everyone who needs it include the new file.
>
> > 3) Compromise: You can avoid most "damage" by having fmgr.h include
> > varatt.h. That satisfies most data types and extension code. That way,
> > there are only a few places that need an explicit include of varatt.h.
>
> > I went with the last option in my patch.
>
> I dunno, #3 seems kind of unprincipled. Also, since fmgr.h is included
> so widely, I doubt it is buying very much in terms of reducing header
> footprint. How bad is it to do #2?
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
>

--
Regards,
Nikita Malakhov
Postgres Professional
https://postgrespro.ru/

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2022-12-29 08:40:52 Re: Is RecoveryConflictInterrupt() entirely safe in a signal handler?
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2022-12-29 06:36:53 Re: Avoiding unnecessary clog lookups while freezing