From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: Fix headerscheck failure in replication/worker_internal.h |
Date: | 2021-11-16 20:12:07 |
Message-ID: | 2256007.1637093527@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> On 2021-Nov-16, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> Not against possibly changing that but I don’t get the point of including
>> be-gssapi-common.h if it’s not enabled in the build and typically if GSSAPI
>> is possible and the reason for including be-gssapi-common.h then there’s
>> other things that need to be under a ifdef, again, as in auth.c
> BTW, this is exactly why my first suggestion was to add an exclusion
> rule to headerscheck so that be-gssapi-common.h is not verified by that
> script. After re-reading your response, that looks like a reasonable
> answer too.
I think adding #ifdef ENABLE_GSS as per your prior message is better.
Headers have little business making assumptions about the context in
which they're included --- which is exactly why headerscheck exists ---
so I disagree with Stephen's argument. In any case I am not in favor of
making random exclusions from that script's testing.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2021-11-16 20:16:13 | Re: pgsql: Fix headerscheck failure in replication/worker_internal.h |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2021-11-16 18:57:15 | Re: pgsql: Fix headerscheck failure in replication/worker_internal.h |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2021-11-16 20:16:13 | Re: pgsql: Fix headerscheck failure in replication/worker_internal.h |
Previous Message | Mark Dilger | 2021-11-16 20:08:04 | Re: Non-superuser subscription owners |