Re: WIP: a way forward on bootstrap data

Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> > John Naylor wrote:
> >> Commit 9fdb675fc added a symbol to pg_opfamily.h
> >> where there were none before, so I went ahead and wrapped it with an
> >> EXPOSE_TO_CLIENT_CODE macro.
>
> > Actually, after pushing that, I was thinking maybe it's better to remove
> > that #define from there and put it in each of the two .c files that need
> > it. I don't think it makes sense to expose this macro any further, and
> > before that commit it was localized to a single file.
>
> We're speaking of IsBooleanOpfamily, right?

Yeah, that's the one.

> Think I'd leave it where it is. As soon as you have more than one
> place using a macro like that, there's room for maintenance mistakes.

Yeah, that's why I thought it'd be better to have it somewhere central
(the originally submitted patch just added it to partprune.c).

> Anyway, now that John and I have each (separately) rebased the bootstrap
> patch over that, I'd appreciate it if you hold off cosmetic refactoring
> till said patch goes in, which I expect to do in ~ 24 hours.

Understood. I'm going over David Rowley's runtime pruning patch now
(doesn't touch any catalog files), which I intend to be my last
functional commit this cycle, and won't be doing any other commits till
after bootstrap rework has landed. (As I mentioned elsewhere, I intend
to propose some restructuring of partitioning code, without any
functional changes, during next week.)

--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services