Re: Inconsistencies around defining FRONTEND
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Inconsistencies around defining FRONTEND |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoYu_Oga-hk+oexmcNDXfqXgK-LgT+5+q1ZPn+0Nd43g0w@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Inconsistencies around defining FRONTEND (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 5:56 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes: > > Actually, I think we could fix these pretty easily too. See attached. > > Hmm, do these headers still pass headerscheck/cpluspluscheck? I didn't check before sending the patch, but now I ran it locally, and I did get failures from both, but they all seem to be unrelated. Mainly, it's sad that I don't have Python.h, but I didn't configure with python, so whatever. > I might quibble a bit with the exact placement of the #ifndef FRONTEND > tests, but overall this looks pretty plausible. Yep, that's arguable. In particular, should the redo functions also be protected by #ifdef FRONTEND? I'd be more than thrilled if you wanted to adjust this to taste and apply it, barring objections from others of course. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: