From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Rename nodes/relation.h => nodes/pathnodes.h ?
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:31:39 -0500
Message-ID: <28718.1548775899@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201901281947.bv5koosxaelf@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <201901281947.bv5koosxaelf@alvherre.pgsql>
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2019-Jan-28, Tom Lane wrote:
>> (There was some mention of trying to split relation.h into multiple
>> files, but I fail to see any advantage in that.)
> Hmm, nodes/relation.h includes lots of other files and is widely
> included.
Yup, that's why I'm trying to reduce the number of files that include it,
over in the other thread.
> If we can split it usefully, I vote for that. However, I
> failed to find any concrete proposal for doing that. I don't have one
> ATM but I'd like to keep the door open for it happening at some point.
The door's always open, of course, but I don't see any point in waiting
around for a hypothetical redesign.
> I do like planner/pathnodes.h as a name, FWIW.
Yeah, I think I'll go with pathnodes.h. We'd probably keep using that
for the Path node typedefs themselves, even if somebody comes up with
a design for splitting out other things.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Rename nodes/relation.h => nodes/pathnodes.h ?
In-Reply-To: <28718.1548775899@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox