On 2022-12-30 Fr 11:50, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com> writes: >> On 28.12.22 16:07, Tom Lane wrote: >>> I dunno, #3 seems kind of unprincipled. Also, since fmgr.h is included >>> so widely, I doubt it is buying very much in terms of reducing header >>> footprint. How bad is it to do #2? >> See this incremental patch set. > Wow, 41 files requiring varatt.h is a lot fewer than I would have guessed. > I think that bears out my feeling that fmgr.h wasn't a great location: > I count 117 #includes of that, many of which are in .h files themselves > so that many more .c files would be required to read them. > > (You did check that this passes cpluspluscheck/headerscheck, right?) > >> It seems like maybe there is some intermediate abstraction that a lot of >> these places should be using that we haven't thought of yet. > Hmm. Perhaps, but I think I'm content with this version of the patch.
Looked good to me too. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com