From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
Cc: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Subject: | Re: SPITupleTable members missing in docs |
Date: | 2019-07-12 15:04:39 |
Message-ID: | 4584.1562943879@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> writes:
> To take into account Tom's comment, I'd suggest a middle ground by
> commenting a public and private part explicitely in the struct, something
> like:
> typedef struct {
> /* PUBLIC members to be used by callers ... */
> ...
> ...
> /* PRIVATE members, not intended for external usage ... */
> ...
> } ... ;
One problem is that the members we've retroactively decided are "public"
are in the middle of the struct :-(.
But it occurs to me that there's no good reason we couldn't re-order the
members, as long as we only do so on HEAD and not in released versions.
That would make it a bit less inconsistent and easier to add labels
such as you suggest.
> Note: I'm probaly not a member of the pgdoc list, so the delivery may fail
> there.
FYI, I believe the current policy is that as long as you're subscribed
to at least one PG list you can post to any of them.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2019-07-12 15:59:56 | Re: SPITupleTable members missing in docs |
Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2019-07-12 14:56:31 | Re: SPITupleTable members missing in docs |