| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: splitting htup.h |
| Date: | 2012-08-29 15:47:14 |
| Message-ID: | 11111.1346255234@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar ago 28 17:27:51 -0400 2012:
>> Also, is there any reason to consider just moving those defs into
>> heapam.h, instead of inventing a new header? I'm not sure if there's
>> any principled distinction between heap.h and heapam.h, or any
>> significant differences between their sets of consumers.
> [ yeah, there's quite a few files that would need heap.h but not heapam.h ]
OK, scratch that thought then. So we seem to be down to choosing a new
name for what we're going to take out of htup.h. If you don't like
heap.h, maybe something like heap_tuple.h? I'm not terribly excited
about it either way though. Any other ideas out there?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2012-08-29 15:54:03 | Re: splitting htup.h |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2012-08-29 15:46:38 | Re: multi-master pgbench? |