Thread: Incorrect include file order in guc-file.l
Hi all, While reviewing a different patch, I have noticed that guc-file.l includes sys/stat.h in the middle of the PG internal headers. The usual practice is to have first postgres[_fe].h, followed by the system headers and finally the internal headers. That's a nit, but all the other files do that. {be,fe}-secure-openssl.c include some exceptions though, as documented there. Thoughts? -- Michael
Attachment
Hi, On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 02:29:50PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > > While reviewing a different patch, I have noticed that guc-file.l > includes sys/stat.h in the middle of the PG internal headers. The > usual practice is to have first postgres[_fe].h, followed by the > system headers and finally the internal headers. That's a nit, but > all the other files do that. > > {be,fe}-secure-openssl.c include some exceptions though, as documented > there. Agreed, it's apparently an oversight in dac048f71eb. +1 for the patch.
On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 1:01 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 02:29:50PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >
> > While reviewing a different patch, I have noticed that guc-file.l
> > includes sys/stat.h in the middle of the PG internal headers. The
> > usual practice is to have first postgres[_fe].h, followed by the
> > system headers and finally the internal headers. That's a nit, but
> > all the other files do that.
> >
> > {be,fe}-secure-openssl.c include some exceptions though, as documented
> > there.
>
> Agreed, it's apparently an oversight in dac048f71eb. +1 for the patch.
Yeah. +1, thanks.
--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 1:01 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Nov 02, 2022 at 02:29:50PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >
> > While reviewing a different patch, I have noticed that guc-file.l
> > includes sys/stat.h in the middle of the PG internal headers. The
> > usual practice is to have first postgres[_fe].h, followed by the
> > system headers and finally the internal headers. That's a nit, but
> > all the other files do that.
> >
> > {be,fe}-secure-openssl.c include some exceptions though, as documented
> > there.
>
> Agreed, it's apparently an oversight in dac048f71eb. +1 for the patch.
I've pushed this, thanks!
--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 12:40:19PM +0700, John Naylor wrote: > On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 1:01 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote: >> Agreed, it's apparently an oversight in dac048f71eb. +1 for the patch. > > I've pushed this, thanks! Thanks for the commit. I've wanted to get it done yesterday but life took over faster than that. Before committing the change, there is something I have noticed though: this header does not seem to be necessary at all and it looks that there is nothing in guc-file.l that needs it. Why did you add it in dac048f to begin with? -- Michael
Attachment
On Thu, Nov 3, 2022 at 6:40 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 12:40:19PM +0700, John Naylor wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 1:01 PM Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Agreed, it's apparently an oversight in dac048f71eb. +1 for the patch.
> >
> > I've pushed this, thanks!
>
> Thanks for the commit. I've wanted to get it done yesterday but life
> took over faster than that. Before committing the change, there is
> something I have noticed though: this header does not seem to be
> necessary at all and it looks that there is nothing in guc-file.l that
> needs it. Why did you add it in dac048f to begin with?
Because it wouldn't compile otherwise, obviously. :-)
On Thu, Nov 03, 2022 at 07:19:07PM +0700, John Naylor wrote: > Because it wouldn't compile otherwise, obviously. :-) > > I must have been working on it before bfb9dfd93720 Hehe, my fault then ;p The CI is able to complete without it. Would you mind if it is removed? If you don't want us to poke more at the bear, that's a nit so leaving things as they are is also fine by me. -- Michael
Attachment
On Fri, Nov 4, 2022 at 5:42 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> The CI is able to complete without it. Would you mind if it is
> removed? If you don't want us to poke more at the bear, that's a nit
> so leaving things as they are is also fine by me.
I've removed it.
--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
On Fri, Nov 04, 2022 at 07:55:20AM +0700, John Naylor wrote: > I've removed it. Thanks. Aha, there were three more of these, as of rewriteheap.c, copydir.c and pgtz.c that I also forgot to clean up in bfb9dfd.. -- Michael