Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 1/18/17 7:38 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Why do fmgroids.h, fmgrprotos.h, and fmgrtab.c now get mentioned
>> twice? I suspect there is something broken about the parallelization.
> I've pushed a fix for this.
Seems to fix the problem for me --- thanks!
On 1/18/17 7:38 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Why do fmgroids.h, fmgrprotos.h, and fmgrtab.c now get mentioned
> twice? I suspect there is something broken about the parallelization.
> If indeed multiple instances of gmake are writing these files
> concurrently, that's likely to result in irreproducible b
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> Here is a patch that moves two blocks from builtins.h into separate
> header files. That avoids having to include nodes/pg_list.h and
> utils/sortsupport.h.
Seems like a reasonable solution.
> The remaining inclusion of nodes/nodes.h is for the oidparse() function.
>
On 1/17/17 3:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alternatively ... is there a specific reason why you chose to make
> builtins.h the key inclusion file for this change, rather than having
> callers include fmgrprotos.h directly? It seems like the stuff remaining
> in builtins.h is just a laundry list of rand
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> Generate fmgr prototypes automatically
BTW, I notice some suspicious-looking behavior with -j:
$ make -j8 -s
Writing fmgroids.h
Writing fmgroids.h
Writing postgres.bki
Writing fmgrprotos.h
Writing fmgrtab.c
Writing schemapg.h
Writing postgres.description
Writing postgr
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> It is possible to replace many occurrences of builtins.h with
>> fmgrprotos.h. I just tried this
>> git grep -l 'include.*utils/builtins.h' -- *.c | xargs perl -pi -e
>> 's{utils/builtins.h}{utils/fmgrprotos.h}'
>> There's a large number of chang
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> It is possible to replace many occurrences of builtins.h with
> fmgrprotos.h. I just tried this
>git grep -l 'include.*utils/builtins.h' -- *.c | xargs perl -pi -e
> 's{utils/builtins.h}{utils/fmgrprotos.h}'
> There's a large number of changes that the oneliner produc
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alternatively ... is there a specific reason why you chose to make
> builtins.h the key inclusion file for this change, rather than having
> callers include fmgrprotos.h directly? It seems like the stuff remaining
> in builtins.h is just a laundry list of random utility function