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
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~ |