Re: Rename nodes/relation.h => nodes/pathnodes.h ?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Rename nodes/relation.h => nodes/pathnodes.h ? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 28718.1548775899@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Rename nodes/relation.h => nodes/pathnodes.h ? (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Rename nodes/relation.h => nodes/pathnodes.h ?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > On 2019-Jan-28, Tom Lane wrote: >> (There was some mention of trying to split relation.h into multiple >> files, but I fail to see any advantage in that.) > Hmm, nodes/relation.h includes lots of other files and is widely > included. Yup, that's why I'm trying to reduce the number of files that include it, over in the other thread. > If we can split it usefully, I vote for that. However, I > failed to find any concrete proposal for doing that. I don't have one > ATM but I'd like to keep the door open for it happening at some point. The door's always open, of course, but I don't see any point in waiting around for a hypothetical redesign. > I do like planner/pathnodes.h as a name, FWIW. Yeah, I think I'll go with pathnodes.h. We'd probably keep using that for the Path node typedefs themselves, even if somebody comes up with a design for splitting out other things. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: