Re: optimizer/clauses.h needn't include access/htup.h - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: optimizer/clauses.h needn't include access/htup.h
Date
Msg-id 166715.1606168841@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to optimizer/clauses.h needn't include access/htup.h  (Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> writes:
> It was only needed between these:
> commit a8677e3ff6bb8ef78a9ba676faa647bba237b1c4
> commit f09346a9c6218dd239fdf3a79a729716c0d305bd

Hm, you're right.  Removed.

> I noticed while looking at "what includes what" and wondered if some of these
> are kind of "modularity violations".

Yeah.  I've ranted before that we ought to have some clearer idea of
module layering within the backend, and avoid cross-header inclusions
that would break the layering.  This particular case didn't really
do so, I suppose, since htup.h would surely be on a lower level than
the optimizer.  But it still seems nicer to not have that inclusion.

Anyway, if you're feeling motivated to explore a more wide-ranging
refactoring, by all means have a go at it.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Daniel Verite"
Date:
Subject: Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: "as quickly as possible" (was: remove spurious CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY wait)