Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> writes: > > John Naylor wrote: > >> Commit 9fdb675fc added a symbol to pg_opfamily.h > >> where there were none before, so I went ahead and wrapped it with an > >> EXPOSE_TO_CLIENT_CODE macro. > > > Actually, after pushing that, I was thinking maybe it's better to remove > > that #define from there and put it in each of the two .c files that need > > it. I don't think it makes sense to expose this macro any further, and > > before that commit it was localized to a single file. > > We're speaking of IsBooleanOpfamily, right?
Yeah, that's the one. > Think I'd leave it where it is. As soon as you have more than one > place using a macro like that, there's room for maintenance mistakes. Yeah, that's why I thought it'd be better to have it somewhere central (the originally submitted patch just added it to partprune.c). > Anyway, now that John and I have each (separately) rebased the bootstrap > patch over that, I'd appreciate it if you hold off cosmetic refactoring > till said patch goes in, which I expect to do in ~ 24 hours. Understood. I'm going over David Rowley's runtime pruning patch now (doesn't touch any catalog files), which I intend to be my last functional commit this cycle, and won't be doing any other commits till after bootstrap rework has landed. (As I mentioned elsewhere, I intend to propose some restructuring of partitioning code, without any functional changes, during next week.) -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
