On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> I think both Stephen and I are saying we don't see merit in that. >>> Moving around pre-existing functions won't accomplish much except >>> causing include-list churn. Let's just standardize the names/APIs >>> and be done. > >> Where do we put the new functions? > > Probably in files that are already concerned with each object type.
Not every object type has a file, and the existing functions are split across three different directories, sometimes in files that don't really pertain to the object type being dealt with. I think this is going to be difficult to maintain if we intentionally spread out the parallel code across essentially the entire backend. But I guess I can code it up and we can argue about it then. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
