Re: Ordering of header file inclusion
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Ordering of header file inclusion |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1+cFkiJYb=RW07amu7xYK4bt-5j+TPtnByL1ZcN0xUBhA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Ordering of header file inclusion (vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Ordering of header file inclusion
Re: Ordering of header file inclusion |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Oct 20, 2019 at 10:58 PM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 4:44 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > I haven't reviewed it completely, but generally, the changes seem to > > be fine. Please see if you can be consistent in extra space between > > includes. Kindly check the same throughout the patch. > > > Thanks for reviewing the patch. > I have made an updated patch with comments you have suggested. > I have split the patch into 3 patches so that the review can be simpler. > This patch also includes the changes suggested by Peter & Andres. > I had just seen seen Tom Lane's suggestions regarding submodule header > file, this patch contains fix based on Andres suggestions. Let me know > if that need to be changed, I can update it. > AFAICS, none of Andres or Tom seems to be in favor of separating module headers. I am also not sure if we should try to make sure of that in every case. > Should we make this changes only in master branch or should we make in > back branches also. > I am in favor of doing this only for HEAD, but I am fine if others want to see for back branches as well and you can prepare the patches for the same. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: