John Naylor <johncnaylorls@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2026 at 9:50 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> One could argue that the real bug is having put a .c file into
>> the include/ tree in the first place. Why was it done like that?
>> Couldn't it be a .h file?
> That was the way it was first coded. I thought of this way to avoid
> adding an exception to headerscheck. I can reverse that decision
> easily, but I may not get to it today.
Ah, the good ol' law of conservation of cruft. But on the whole
I think naming it .h not .c is less crufty. Agreed that there's
no great urgency about changing it.
regards, tom lane