On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:43:46PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2014-10-11 17:19:27 -0400, Noah Misch wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 10:44:39AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > > Started a new thread to raise awareness. > > > > > Ref: this comes from > > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cab7npqr1ivd5r_qn_ngmkbolqmagbosj4wnpo8eybnn6we_...@mail.gmail.com > > > > Thanks. You can assume I'm -1 on every header split proposal not driving a > > substantial compile duration improvement: > > I don't know. Isn't it, from a aesthetic POV, wrong to have all that > stuff in builtins.h? The stuff split of really doesn't seem to belong > there?
Yes, the status quo is aesthetically wrong. Still, any clarity improvement from this split is vaporous. The cost of breaking module builds is real. > I personally wouldn't object plaing a #include for the splitof file into > builtin.h to address backward compat concerns. Would imo still be an > improvement. Agreed. If the patch preserved compatibility by having builtins.h include quote.h, I would not object. nm -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
