From: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, pgsql-docs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Subject: | Re: SPITupleTable members missing in docs |
Date: | 2019-07-15 08:51:36 |
Message-ID: | E3EABCE1-0B95-4091-9679-DAB065904F97@yesql.se |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-docs |
> On 12 Jul 2019, at 17:04, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> 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:
Thanks for the review!
>> 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.
I quite like this suggestion, so I’ve changed the patch to do this. Removed
the doc: in the commit message to indicate that this is no longer just touching
documentation.
cheers ./daniel
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
spitupletable-v2.patch | application/octet-stream | 3.3 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2019-07-15 10:21:03 | Re: Outdated tip in the "Adding a column section" |
Previous Message | Daniel Westermann (DWE) | 2019-07-14 06:12:42 | Outdated tip in the "Adding a column section" |