Re: Splitting up guc.c

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Subject: Re: Splitting up guc.c
Date: 2022-09-11 00:43:08
Message-ID: Yx0vHEBXwcUggZYK@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Sep 10, 2022 at 03:04:59PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Before proceeding further, I wanted to ask for comments on a design
> choice that might be controversial. Even though I don't want to
> invent guc_hooks.c, I think we *should* invent guc_hooks.h, and
> consolidate all the GUC hook function declarations there. The
> point would be to not have to #include guc.h in headers of unrelated
> modules. This is similar to what we've done with utils/fmgrprotos.h,
> though the motivation is different. I already moved a few declarations
> from guc.h to there (and in consequence had to adjust #includes in
> the modules defining those hooks), but there's a lot more to be done
> if we apply that policy across the board. Does anybody think that's
> a bad approach, or have a better one?

One part that I have found a bit strange lately about guc.c is that we
have mix the core machinery with the SQL-callable parts. What do you
think about the addition of a gucfuncs.c in src/backend/utils/adt/ to
split things a bit more?
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Isaac Morland 2022-09-11 01:41:54 Re: why can't a table be part of the same publication as its schema
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2022-09-11 00:28:54 Re: Bump MIN_WINNT to 0x0600 (Vista) as minimal runtime in 16~