Re: [HACKERS] palloc.h again - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [HACKERS] palloc.h again
Date
Msg-id 6284.920903945@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] palloc.h again  (Michael Meskes <meskes@postgresql.org>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] palloc.h again
List pgsql-hackers
Michael Meskes <meskes@postgreSQL.org> writes:
> On Sun, Mar 07, 1999 at 02:22:28PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Wait a sec ... ecpg?  ecpg shouldn't be depending on backend internals
>> at all, should it?  I thought we were talking about support for
>> dynamically loaded backend extensions.

> Hmm, historically ecpg's ecpglib.h includes postgres.h which include
> palloc.h. But scanning through postgres.h I wonder why. 

It'd probably be better if you could make ecpg code depend only on
postgres_ext.h.  However, I did commit fixes yesterday to solve the
immediate problem with mcxt.h.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: The Hermit Hacker
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 6.4.3 release
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Timespan_div misbehaving?