Re: libpgport vs libpgcommon

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 09:41:20PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> I wonder whether it was ever consciously decided what the dependency
> relationship between libpgport and libpgcommon would be. When I added
> asprintf(), I had intuitively figured that libpgport would be the lower
> layer, and so psprintf() in libpgcommon depends on vasprintf() in
> libpgport. I still think that is sound. But working through the
> buildfarm issues now it turns out that wait_result_to_str() in libpgport
> depends on pstrdup() in libpgcommon. That doesn't seem ideal. I think
> in this case we could move wait_error.c to libpgcommon. But I would
> like to know what the consensus on the overall setup is.

Interesting. I, too, would have figured that libpgport is lower-level,
because any higher-level library might need the libc functions it replaces.
Moving wait_error.c to libpgcommon makes sense. dirmod.c perhaps deserves a
split into libpgcommon parts (e.g. pgfnames()) and libpgport parts
(e.g. pgrename()). Hopefully there's not much more.

Thanks,
nm

--
Noah Misch
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com