Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> writes:
> Peter Geoghegan suggested [1] moving rbtree.c to src/backend/lib, which
> I think makes a lot of sense. Now that we have several other general
> purpose data structures in src/backend/lib (linked lists, a binary heap,
> and a pairing heap), rbtree.c would definitely be better placed in
> src/backend/lib, too.
> The usual objection to moving things is that it makes back-patching
> harder. It also might break third-party code that use it (since
> presumably we would also move the .h file). Nevertheless, I feel the
> advantages outweigh the disadvantages in this case.
> Any objections?
A look at the git history says that rbtree.h/.c have not been touched
(except by copyright/pgindent commits) since 9.0, so probably the
backpatch argument doesn't have much force.
However, wasn't there some speculation about removing rbtree entirely?
If we're going to end up doing that, moving the files first is just
unnecessary thrashing.
regards, tom lane
