On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 1:00 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan writes:
>> On 11/08/2014 12:37 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> Well, yes :) I missed that. Note that I am leaning to Robert's
>>> direction as well to do a clear separation... Now if the final
>>> consensus is different, then let's
Andrew Dunstan writes:
> On 11/08/2014 12:37 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Well, yes :) I missed that. Note that I am leaning to Robert's
>> direction as well to do a clear separation... Now if the final
>> consensus is different, then let's use the patch attached that puts
>> the SQL functions to
On 11/08/2014 12:37 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 5:55 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:31 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
I thought the consensus was that the SQL-callable function declarations
should remain in builtins.h -- mainly so
On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 5:55 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:31 AM, Alvaro Herrera
>> wrote:
>
>> > I thought the consensus was that the SQL-callable function declarations
>> > should remain in builtins.h -- mainly so that quote.h does not need to
>>
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>> I personally think that's getting our priorities backwards, but
>> there's clearly a spectrum in terms of how much people care about the
>> cost of partial compiles, and I'm clearly all the way on one end of
>> it. I do
Robert Haas wrote:
> I personally think that's getting our priorities backwards, but
> there's clearly a spectrum in terms of how much people care about the
> cost of partial compiles, and I'm clearly all the way on one end of
> it. I don't like having to think hard about where a function
> proto
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:31 AM, Alvaro Herrera
>> wrote:
>
>> > I thought the consensus was that the SQL-callable function declarations
>> > should remain in builtins.h -- mainly so that quote.h does not need to
>>
Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:31 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> wrote:
> > I thought the consensus was that the SQL-callable function declarations
> > should remain in builtins.h -- mainly so that quote.h does not need to
> > include fmgr.h.
> Moving everything to quote.h is done in-li
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:31 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
>> I just reviewed this patch :
>>
>> * applies cleanly to master(d2b8a2c7)
>> * all regression tests pass
>>
>> As it's only moving functions from builtins.h to quote.h and update
>> impacted files, nothing special to
Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> I just reviewed this patch :
>
> * applies cleanly to master(d2b8a2c7)
> * all regression tests pass
>
> As it's only moving functions from builtins.h to quote.h and update
> impacted files, nothing special to add.
>
> It will probably break some user extensions using qu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Le 14/10/2014 10:00, Michael Paquier a écrit :
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Robert Haas
> wrote:
>>
>> IMHO, putting some prototypes for a .c file in one header and
>> others in another header is going to make it significantly harder
>> to fig
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> IMHO, putting some prototypes for a .c file in one header and others
> in another header is going to make it significantly harder to figure
> out which files you need to #include when. Keeping a simple rule there
> seems essential to me.
OK
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
> That's a 2/2 tie then AFAIK: Noah and Stephen express concerns about
> the breakage, you and I would be fine with a clear breakage to make
> code more organized (correct me if you don't feel this way).
Well, I think that the long-standing
I wrote:
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> Are you referring to the Datum quote_*(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS) that are
>> still let in builtins.h? That was let on purpose to let all the SQL
>> functions within builtins.h but I'd be happy to move everything to
>> quote.h to make the separation clearer.
> I agree
Michael Paquier writes:
> On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> No significant advantage will be gained by splitting it out and then
>> #including it; nobody's really going to fix their module builds until
>> they actually break.
>> On the general substance of the issue, our usu
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
> >> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:43:46PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> > I personally wouldn't object plaing a #include for the splitof file into
> >>
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
>> * Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
>>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:43:46PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
>>> > I personally wouldn't object plaing a #include for the splitof file into
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:43:46PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > I personally wouldn't object plaing a #include for the splitof file into
>> > builtin.h to address backward compat concerns. Would
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:43:46PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > I personally wouldn't object plaing a #include for the splitof file into
>> > builtin.h to address backward compat concerns. Would
* Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:43:46PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> > 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
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
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 05:19:27PM -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/cab7n
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
>
>
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 05:19:27PM -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.gm
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
Started a new thread to raise awareness.
Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 6:26 AM, Alvaro Herrera
> > wrote:
> >> However, if I were to do it, I would instead create a quote.h file and
> >> would also add the quote_liter
26 matches
Mail list logo
