On 2022-12-30 Fr 11:50, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> On 28.12.22 16:07, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I dunno, #3 seems kind of unprincipled. Also, since fmgr.h is included
>>> so widely, I doubt it is buying very much in terms of reducing header
>>> footprint. How bad is it to do #2?
>> See this incremental patch set.
> Wow, 41 files requiring varatt.h is a lot fewer than I would have guessed.
> I think that bears out my feeling that fmgr.h wasn't a great location:
> I count 117 #includes of that, many of which are in .h files themselves
> so that many more .c files would be required to read them.
>
> (You did check that this passes cpluspluscheck/headerscheck, right?)
>
>> It seems like maybe there is some intermediate abstraction that a lot of
>> these places should be using that we haven't thought of yet.
> Hmm. Perhaps, but I think I'm content with this version of the patch.
Looked good to me too.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
