Re: Refactoring the checkpointer's fsync request queue - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: Refactoring the checkpointer's fsync request queue
Date
Msg-id CA+hUKGJ_VpGoT54=A4SCAPOFJ0Q+S5oTFNRL+HZzC-E_djCdrw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Refactoring the checkpointer's fsync request queue  (Shawn Debnath <sdn@amazon.com>)
Responses Re: Refactoring the checkpointer's fsync request queue
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 6:16 AM Shawn Debnath <sdn@amazon.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2019 at 11:53:16AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes:
> > > Why do we need to include fmgr.h in md.h?
> >
> > More generally, any massive increase in an include file's inclusions
> > is probably a sign that you need to refactor.  Cross-header inclusions
> > are best avoided altogether if you can --- obviously that's not always
> > possible, but we should minimize them.  We've had some very unfortunate
> > problems in the past from indiscriminate #includes in headers.
>
> Agree - I do pay attention to these, but this one slipped through the
> cracks (copied smgr.h then edited to remove smgr bits). Thanks for
> catching this, will fix in the next patch iteration.

Huh... so why it was in smgr.h then?  Seems bogus.  Fix pushed to master.

-- 
Thomas Munro
https://enterprisedb.com


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Steele
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: proposal: plpgsql pragma statement
Next
From: Rushabh Lathia
Date:
Subject: Re: ECPG regression with DECLARE STATEMENT support