From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Banck <mbanck(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_checksums: Reorder headers in alphabetical order |
Date: | 2024-09-21 05:48:32 |
Message-ID: | 238b123f-0965-4ac7-9894-9300f01fd477@oss.nttdata.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2024/09/21 12:09, Tom Lane wrote:
> Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> writes:
>> I don’t have any objections to this commit, but I’d like to confirm
>> whether we really want to proactively reorder #include directives,
>> even for standard C library headers.
>
> I'm hesitant to do that. We can afford to insist that our own header
> files be inclusion-order-independent, because we have the ability to
> fix any problems that might arise. We have no ability to do something
> about it if the system headers on $random_platform have inclusion
> order dependencies. (In fact, I'm fairly sure there are already
> places in plperl and plpython where we know we have to be careful
> about inclusion order around those languages' headers.)
>
> So I would tread pretty carefully around making changes of this
> type, especially in long-established code. I have no reason to
> think that the committed patch will cause any problems, but
> I do think it's mostly asking for trouble.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | jian he | 2024-09-21 06:01:00 | Re: meson and check-tests |
Previous Message | shihao zhong | 2024-09-21 05:31:15 | Re: Clock-skew management in logical replication |