From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: WIP: pushing parser hooks through SPI and plancache |
Date: | 2009-11-04 20:49:44 |
Message-ID: | 20091104204944.GI3531@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> ... For the moment I've worked
> >> around this by putting the typedef into nodes/params.h itself, but I
> >> can't say I find that a pleasing solution. Has anyone got a better
> >> idea? Should we make a parser/something header that just provides that
> >> typedef?
>
> > Hmm ... if you create the new include file, is that going to avoid
> > having to include params.h in plancache.h?
>
> Well, it'd include the new file instead of params.h.
It would be a problem if params.h included some other stuff, but since
it's standalone I can't say it's a problem.
> > If not, I don't think there's much point in having a new file (other
> > than the typedef just not fitting in params.h).
>
> Yeah, what's bothering me is that it just doesn't fit there --- doesn't
> seem to satisfy the POLA. But I guess there are plenty of bigger
> issues than that in our code base.
Yeah.
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2009-11-04 23:17:55 | Re: A small bug in gram.y |
Previous Message | John Naylor | 2009-11-04 20:28:11 | Experimental patch: generating BKI revisited |