Re: split builtins.h to quote.h
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: split builtins.h to quote.h |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+Tgmoaa1amp5QXJoWyERMUgGLMzrjBu35pRp=McdiH_BJhQPA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: split builtins.h to quote.h (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: split builtins.h to quote.h
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:31 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > >> > I thought the consensus was that the SQL-callable function declarations >> > should remain in builtins.h -- mainly so that quote.h does not need to >> > include fmgr.h. >> Moving everything to quote.h is done in-line with what Tom and Robert >> suggested, builtins.h being a refuge for function declarations that >> have nowhere else to go. Suggestion from here: >> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoZF3dkpTuA6Ex6gXLnnd-nMS-fBjCXRoiTwFfH-+6yBQQ@mail.gmail.com > > Did you miss this one? > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/31728.1413209460@sss.pgh.pa.us I personally think that's getting our priorities backwards, but there's clearly a spectrum in terms of how much people care about the cost of partial compiles, and I'm clearly all the way on one end of it. I don't like having to think hard about where a function prototype is or should be, and getting more consistency there would, for me, outweigh all other considerations. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: