Hello,
On 2026-Mar-23, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> So the changes done in your patches make sense to me.
>
> I have 2 comments:
>
> 1/ wait_event.c
>
> -#include "storage/lmgr.h" /* for GetLockNameFromTagType */
> -#include "storage/lwlock.h" /* for GetLWLockIdentifier */
> +#include "storage/lmgr.h"
> +#include "storage/lwlock.h"
> +#include "storage/shmem.h"
> #include "storage/spin.h"
> +#include "utils/hsearch.h"
>
> hsearch.h is already included into shmem.h so its direct include is not needed.
> That said wait_event.c needs it so including it directly might make sense just from
> a coding "style" point of view (given that it is harmless as it is protected by
> ifndef HSEARCH_H).
Hmm, right -- I don't need to add both. Done that way. I also made
some alphabetical sorts and pushed this part.
> 2/ Not directly linked to your patches
>
> It looks like that aio_funcs.c does not need lock.h (reported by include-what-you-use).
> If we remove its direct include, it's still indirectly included through proc.h
> though. But I think that removing its direct include makes sense as it's not
> needed at all.
I'm not opposed to somebody else making this change, if they want, but I
think there's little practical impact.
--
Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"En las profundidades de nuestro inconsciente hay una obsesiva necesidad
de un universo lógico y coherente. Pero el universo real se halla siempre
un paso más allá de la lógica" (Irulan)
