Re: split builtins.h to quote.h - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: split builtins.h to quote.h
Date
Msg-id 548C6081.2000004@dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: split builtins.h to quote.h  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: split builtins.h to quote.h  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 11/08/2014 12:37 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 5:55 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:31 AM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>>> I thought the consensus was that the SQL-callable function declarations
>>>> should remain in builtins.h -- mainly so that quote.h does not need to
>>>> include fmgr.h.
>>> Moving everything to quote.h is done in-line with what Tom and Robert
>>> suggested, builtins.h being a refuge for function declarations that
>>> have nowhere else to go. Suggestion from here:
>>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoZF3dkpTuA6Ex6gXLnnd-nMS-fBjCXRoiTwFfH-+6yBQQ@mail.gmail.com
>> Did you miss this one?
>> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/31728.1413209460@sss.pgh.pa.us
> Well, yes :) I missed that. Note that I am leaning to Robert's
> direction as well to do a clear separation... Now if the final
> consensus is different, then let's use the patch attached that puts
> the SQL functions to builtins.h, and the rest in quote.h.
>

I am unlcear about what the consensus is on this, and don't have strong 
feelings either way. Do we need a vote? It's not of earth-shattering 
importance, but my slight inclination would be to do the minimally 
invasive thing where there is disagreement.

cheers

andrew




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pgbench -f and vacuum
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: split builtins.h to quote.h