From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Ordering of header file inclusion |
Date: | 2019-10-16 02:40:18 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+RM2wGVj35Tf1OP6USVyvP-MXK3Q70Bd734HO0a2avyQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 10:57 PM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 11:37 AM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 8:19 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > >
> > > Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > > > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 2:57 PM vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >> I noticed that some of the header files inclusion is not ordered as
> > > >> per the usual standard that is followed.
> > > >> The attached patch contains the fix for the order in which the header
> > > >> files are included.
> > > >> Let me know your thoughts on the same.
> > >
> > > > +1.
> > >
> > > FWIW, I'm not on board with reordering system-header inclusions.
> > > Some platforms have (had?) ordering dependencies for those, and where
> > > that's true, it's seldom alphabetical. It's only our own headers
> > > where we can safely expect that any arbitrary order will work.
> > >
> >
> > Okay, that makes sense. However, I noticed that ordering for
> > system-header inclusions is somewhat random. For ex. nodeSubPlan.c,
> > datetime.c, etc. include limits.h first and then math.h whereas
> > knapsack.c, float.c includes them in reverse order. There could be
> > more such inconsistencies and the probable reason is that we don't
> > have any specific rule, so different people decide to do it
> > differently.
> >
> > > > I think we shouldn't remove the extra line as part of the above change.
> > >
> > > I would take out the blank lines between our own #includes.
> > >
> >
> > Okay, that would be better, but doing it half-heartedly as done in
> > patch might make it worse. So, it is better to remove blank lines
> > between our own #includes in all cases.
> >
> Attached patch contains the fix based on the comments suggested.
>
Thanks for working on this. I will look into this in the coming few
days or during next CF. Can you please register it for the next CF
(https://commitfest.postgresql.org/25/)?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | ideriha.takeshi@fujitsu.com | 2019-10-16 03:22:06 | RE: Copy data to DSA area |
Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2019-10-16 01:49:51 | Re: maintenance_work_mem used by Vacuum |