Re: Moving src/backend/utils/misc/rbtree.c to src/backend/lib
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Moving src/backend/utils/misc/rbtree.c to src/backend/lib |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 19040.1419261588@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Moving src/backend/utils/misc/rbtree.c to src/backend/lib (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Moving src/backend/utils/misc/rbtree.c to src/backend/lib
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> writes: > Peter Geoghegan suggested [1] moving rbtree.c to src/backend/lib, which > I think makes a lot of sense. Now that we have several other general > purpose data structures in src/backend/lib (linked lists, a binary heap, > and a pairing heap), rbtree.c would definitely be better placed in > src/backend/lib, too. > The usual objection to moving things is that it makes back-patching > harder. It also might break third-party code that use it (since > presumably we would also move the .h file). Nevertheless, I feel the > advantages outweigh the disadvantages in this case. > Any objections? A look at the git history says that rbtree.h/.c have not been touched (except by copyright/pgindent commits) since 9.0, so probably the backpatch argument doesn't have much force. However, wasn't there some speculation about removing rbtree entirely? If we're going to end up doing that, moving the files first is just unnecessary thrashing. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: