On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 05:23:43PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > Are we not moving items over to common where appropriate?
>
> I don't think we're moving code from src/port to src/common just for the
> heck of it; but ISTM if we're adding new code which belongs to
> src/common, and there's a natural file for it in src/port which should
> arguably also be in src/common, then it makes sense to put both the new
> code and the old file together in src/common.
>
> Note that nothing in src/port should depend on stuff in src/common. As
> I see it, src/port is very bare-bones stuff which src/common builds on
> top of. It might also make sense, in some cases, to consider low-level
> routines in src/port that are used by higher level routines in
> src/common.
OK, C file moved from /port to /common.
> > Are we worried about bring external applications?
>
> Please rephrase. What are we worried about?
I was asking if we did not move old functions from port to common
because of concern about breaking 3rd party applications.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
