Re: Is it really such a great idea for spi.h to include the world?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Is it really such a great idea for spi.h to include the world?
Date: 2009-01-06 19:20:06
Message-ID: 9866.1231269606@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I propose changing spi.h to follow the same include-only-what-you-must
>>> rule as every other backend header file. Thoughts?
>>
>> I don't think we ever cleaned out spi.h in the past because we were
>> worried about 3rd party code using it (I am fine with a cleanup).

> I've wondered about spi.h lately too while looking at header cleanup,
> and I agree with the proposed solution. The worst that can happen is
> that somebody needs to add extra includes in their programs in order for
> them to compile with 8.4. We do enough other changes that this one is
> really minor. Better late than never anyway.

Okay, I'll do a trial patch and we can see exactly how much has to be
added (at least among core and contrib) before deciding for sure.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2009-01-06 19:41:11 Re: stat() vs cygwin
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-01-06 19:06:03 Re: Warning about the 8.4 release