From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alexander Korotkov <akorotkov(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: postgres.h included from relcache.h - but removing it breaks pg_upgrade |
Date: | 2021-09-18 00:06:55 |
Message-ID: | 20210918000655.hcrp2po7qu7jcmq7@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2021-09-18 02:51:09 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 6:53 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Without having looked at the details, I think using a forward-declare
> > to avoid including relcache.h in visibilitymap.h might be a reasonably
> > non-painful fix.
>
> I like that idea, but I didn't find an appropriate existing header for
> forward-declaration of Relation. relation.h isn't suitable, because
> it includes primnodes.h. A separate header for just
> forward-definition of Relation seems too much.
I was just thinking of doing something like the attached.
> > TOH, in the long run it might be worth the effort
> > to split visibilitymap.h to separate useful file-contents knowledge
> > from backend function declarations.
>
> I've drafted a patch splitting visibilitymap_maros.h from
> visibilitymap.h. What do you think?
I'd name it visibilitymapdefs.h or such, mostly because that's what other
headers are named like...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
forward-declare.diff | text/x-diff | 2.4 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2021-09-18 00:09:35 | Re: Access last_sqlstate from libpq |
Previous Message | Daniel Frey | 2021-09-18 00:00:14 | Re: Access last_sqlstate from libpq |