Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 00:10:48 +0200
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Adam Brightwell <adam.brightwell@crunchydatasolutions.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Unnecessary #include in objectaddress.h?
Message-ID: <20150720221048.GV2301@postgresql.org>
References: 
 <CAKRt6CT6Av0SdRWK76yA8_YPfkWZC=UhNXOZnOccvR1bYweDjA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKRt6CT6Av0SdRWK76yA8_YPfkWZC=UhNXOZnOccvR1bYweDjA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Adam Brightwell wrote:
> All,
> 
> While looking at the include dependency graph for objectaddress.h:
> 
> http://doxygen.postgresql.org/objectaddress_8h.html
> 
> I saw that pg_list.h is both included and inherited (through multiple
> paths) by objectaddress.h.  Perhaps this doesn't matter, but I thought
> I would at least bring it up and propose removing this redundant
> #include from objectaddress.h.

I wondered whether to bother about this kind of thing for a while.  It
doesn't have any practical impact immediately, because obviously
pg_list.h is still included indirectly by objectaddress.h (via lock.h in
this case IIRC).  If we made some restructuring that caused the other
header not to include pg_list.h anymore, that would make objectaddress.h
broken -- unless objectaddress.h itself no longer needed pg_list.h.

We've had in previous rounds whole iterations on a "pgrminclude" script
that does this kind of thing, but the breakage after each such run is
large.

All in all, I wouldn't bother unless there is an actual change.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers