Re: [HACKERS] palloc.h again

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] palloc.h again
Date: 1999-03-08 14:39:05
Message-ID: 6284.920903945@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> writes:
> On Sun, Mar 07, 1999 at 02:22:28PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Wait a sec ... ecpg? ecpg shouldn't be depending on backend internals
>> at all, should it? I thought we were talking about support for
>> dynamically loaded backend extensions.

> Hmm, historically ecpg's ecpglib.h includes postgres.h which include
> palloc.h. But scanning through postgres.h I wonder why.

It'd probably be better if you could make ecpg code depend only on
postgres_ext.h. However, I did commit fixes yesterday to solve the
immediate problem with mcxt.h.

regards, tom lane

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 1999-03-08 15:21:29 Re: [HACKERS] Timespan_div misbehaving?
Previous Message The Hermit Hacker 1999-03-08 13:45:47 Re: [HACKERS] 6.4.3 release