Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 2023-03-03 Fr 13:46, Tom Lane wrote:
>> This is actually moving the inclusion-check goalposts quite far,
>> but HEAD seems to pass cleanly, and again we can always adjust later.
>> Any objections?
> LGTM
Pushed, thanks for looking.
regards,
On 2023-03-03 Fr 13:46, Tom Lane wrote:
I wrote:
We can easily do better, as attached, but I wonder which other
headers should get the same treatment.
After a bit of further research I propose the attached. I'm not
sure exactly what subset of ECPG headers is meant to be exposed
to clients,
I wrote:
> We can easily do better, as attached, but I wonder which other
> headers should get the same treatment.
After a bit of further research I propose the attached. I'm not
sure exactly what subset of ECPG headers is meant to be exposed
to clients, but we can adjust these patterns if new
I realized that headerscheck is failing to enforce $SUBJECT.
This is bad, since we aren't really using libpq-fe.h ourselves
in a way that would ensure that c.h symbols don't creep into it.
We can easily do better, as attached, but I wonder which other
headers should get the same treatment.
