Re: pgsql: Fix headerscheck failure in replication/worker_internal.h
От | Stephen Frost |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgsql: Fix headerscheck failure in replication/worker_internal.h |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAOuzzgohQerBnqgwyuAEos6O5-oAxSR_natTjr2=wuSn-ewmEg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pgsql: Fix headerscheck failure in replication/worker_internal.h (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Greetings,
On Tue, Nov 16, 2021 at 15:12 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> On 2021-Nov-16, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> Not against possibly changing that but I don’t get the point of including
>> be-gssapi-common.h if it’s not enabled in the build and typically if GSSAPI
>> is possible and the reason for including be-gssapi-common.h then there’s
>> other things that need to be under a ifdef, again, as in auth.c
> BTW, this is exactly why my first suggestion was to add an exclusion
> rule to headerscheck so that be-gssapi-common.h is not verified by that
> script. After re-reading your response, that looks like a reasonable
> answer too.
I think adding #ifdef ENABLE_GSS as per your prior message is better.
Headers have little business making assumptions about the context in
which they're included --- which is exactly why headerscheck exists ---
so I disagree with Stephen's argument. In any case I am not in favor of
making random exclusions from that script's testing.
I don’t feel all that strongly either way, so if you’d rather have it that way then that’s fine. Will still need the other ifdefs too anyway though, but I guess it isn’t that big of a deal.
Thanks,
Stephen
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: