Re: Further simplification of c.h's #include section - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Further simplification of c.h's #include section
Date
Msg-id 6279.1510782379@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Further simplification of c.h's #include section  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Further simplification of c.h's #include section  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> How do you feel about "win32_more.h"?

> Seems morally equivalent to what you had before.  I think what I would
> be looking for is a filename that somehow conveys what the difference
> is between what should go in the existing file and what should go in
> the new file.  If we don't know, maybe we should find out before we
> change things.

Well, the point is whether it gets included before or after the key
system header files.  "win32_post_headers.h", perhaps?

As for the question of what actually needs to be in it, you're
asking the wrong person.  It looks like some of it could be moved
to before the system headers, but I am in no position to find out
exactly what, except by trial-and-error with the buildfarm.  And
TBH I don't care particularly, as long as it's in a windows-specific
file and not a common file.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Transaction control in procedures
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Updated macOS start scripts