Re: Is it really such a great idea for spi.h to include the world?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Is it really such a great idea for spi.h to include the world?
Date: 2009-01-06 21:25:30
Message-ID: 11474.1231277130@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> They are both very lean, so no objections. I guess that the pg_type.h
> inclusion is needed due to the predefined type OIDs, and it makes me
> wonder whether it would be useful to have them in a separate header.
> Not enough concern for the idea to even make it to Bruce's open items
> mailbox ...

After the header refactoring Zdenek did last year, there's not much
reason to not just #include pg_type.h --- so I'd just as soon keep
those macros together with the associated DATA lines.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-01-06 21:32:22 Re: parallel restore
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2009-01-06 21:23:47 Re: pgsql: This makes all the \dX commands (most importantly to most: \df)