Re: [HACKERS] On the warpath again about ill-considered inclusion nests

2014-11-14 Thread Stephen Frost
All, * Stephen Frost (sfr...@snowman.net) wrote: > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > > Well, if you *only* move RowSecurityDesc and not RowSecurityPolicy, > > okay, but that seems a bit useless/inconsistent if I'm reading it > > right that RowSecurityDesc contains a List of RowSecurityPolic

Re: [HACKERS] On the warpath again about ill-considered inclusion nests

2014-11-13 Thread Stephen Frost
Tom, * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Well, if you *only* move RowSecurityDesc and not RowSecurityPolicy, > okay, but that seems a bit useless/inconsistent if I'm reading it > right that RowSecurityDesc contains a List of RowSecurityPolicy structs. Yes, good point. > What seems possibly

Re: [HACKERS] On the warpath again about ill-considered inclusion nests

2014-11-13 Thread Tom Lane
Stephen Frost writes: > * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: >> has any business including. And if that weren't bad enough, it's >> been included into utils/rel.h (relcache), > This is for the definition of RowSecurityDesc. I'm happy to move that > to a utils/rowsecurity.h instead, following

Re: [HACKERS] On the warpath again about ill-considered inclusion nests

2014-11-12 Thread Stephen Frost
* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > src/include/rewrite/rowsecurity.h, which one would > reasonably think to be a rewriter header (nevermind its header comment > to the contrary), nonetheless includes execnodes.h (executor stuff) I'll fix the header comment. The include of execnodes.h was a

Re: [HACKERS] On the warpath again about ill-considered inclusion nests

2014-11-12 Thread Stephen Frost
* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > I noticed that the recent custom-path commit completely ignored my > > advice about not including executor headers into planner headers or > > vice versa. On the way to fixing that, I was dismayed to discover > > that the RLS

Re: [HACKERS] On the warpath again about ill-considered inclusion nests

2014-11-12 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Tom Lane wrote: > I noticed that the recent custom-path commit completely ignored my > advice about not including executor headers into planner headers or > vice versa. On the way to fixing that, I was dismayed to discover > that the RLS patch has utterly bollixed all semblance of modularization >

[HACKERS] On the warpath again about ill-considered inclusion nests

2014-11-12 Thread Tom Lane
I noticed that the recent custom-path commit completely ignored my advice about not including executor headers into planner headers or vice versa. On the way to fixing that, I was dismayed to discover that the RLS patch has utterly bollixed all semblance of modularization of the headers. src/incl