Re: [HACKERS] WIP: [[Parallel] Shared] Hash
От | Thomas Munro |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] WIP: [[Parallel] Shared] Hash |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAEepm=2r1XFqvE8EX=CT8Oftmj6R7jWLWMi+3MMT64zrarFYtQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] WIP: [[Parallel] Shared] Hash (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:15 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: >> +++ b/src/include/storage/barrier.h >> +#include "postgres.h" > >> Huh, that normally shouldn't be in a header. I see you introduced that >> in a bunch of other places too - that really doesn't look right to me. > > That is absolutely not project style and is not acceptable. > > The core reason why not is that postgres.h/postgres_fe.h/c.h have to be > the *first* inclusion in every compilation, for arcane portability reasons > you really don't want to know about. (Suffice it to say that on some > platforms, stdio.h isn't all that std.) Our coding rule for that is that > we put the appropriate one of these first in every .c file, while .h files > always assume that it's been included already. As soon as you break that > convention, it becomes unclear from looking at a .c file whether the > ordering requirement has been satisfied. Also, since now you've moved > the must-be-first requirement to some other header file(s), you risk > breakage when somebody applies another project convention about > alphabetizing #include references for all headers other than those magic > ones. Thanks for the explanation. Will post a new series addressing this and other complaints from Andres shortly. -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: