Re: Commands/ directory reorganisation

Tom Lane wrote:
> John Gray <jgray@azuli.co.uk> writes:
> > Patch attached in line with my previous statement on -hackers about
> > reorganisation of files in the commands directory. (Note that define.c
> > has been kept, holding some of the common support code for define
> > routines.)
>
> This patch looks reasonable to me, with one significant gripe and a
> couple of minor ones.
>
> The significant gripe is that I don't think domaincmds.c should exist;
> domains are not really different from types and so I think their
> commands should be in typecmds.c.  Splitting into two files doesn't do
> much except eliminate the possibility of sharing code via "static"
> subroutines.
>
> I have one or two trivial coding-style issues too, like not wanting to
> see "extern" on routine definitions.
>
> If no one has any other objections, I'll fix the things that are
> bothering me and check it in.

Sounds good to me.

--
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026