On 10 July 2012 20:28, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: > I think we should just define constants for the set of fields the patch > currently uses. When and if we later add new fields to other callsites, > we can define more constants.
Fair enough. Let's do that. > FWIW about the new include: I feel a strong dislike about the forward > declaration you suggest. Defining Relation in elog.h seems completely > out of place. The one you suggested as precedent (BufFile) is > completely unlike it, in that the declaration is clearly placed in the > header (buffile.h) of the module that works with the struct in question. I haven't defined Relation in elog.h; I have pre-declared it there. Maybe that isn't to your taste, but there is surely something to be said for adding exactly one line of code in preference to adding an entire new header file, and having a bunch of existing files include that new header. That said, it's not as if I feel strongly about it. -- Peter Geoghegan http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
