Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6
Date
Msg-id 20150807171152.GC4916@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2015-08-07 12:30:04 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> It may not be included from any IN CORE frontend code, but that is not
> the same thing as saying it's not included from any frontend code at
> all.  For example, EDB has code that includes namespace.h in frontend
> code.  That compiled before this commit; now it doesn't.

Nothing in namespace.h seems to be of any possible use for frontend
code. If there were possible use-cases I'd be inclined to agree, but you
obvoiusly can't use any of the functions, the structs and the guc make
no sense either.  So I really don't why we should cater for that?

I think the likelihood of actually breaking correct working extension
code that uses namespace.h that'd be broken if we removed lock.h from
namespace.h is an order of magnitude bigger than the possible impact on
frontend code.

Greetings,

Andres Freund



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jesper Pedersen
Date:
Subject: Re: Reduce ProcArrayLock contention
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6