On 30.12.22 17:50, 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.
committed
