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 ?
In-reply-to: <201901281947.bv5koosxaelf@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <201901281947.bv5koosxaelf@alvherre.pgsql>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
	message dated "Mon, 28 Jan 2019 16:47:15 -0300"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <28717.1548775899.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 10:31:39 -0500
Message-ID: <28718.1548775899@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

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