Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> On 28.12.22 16:07, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I dunno, #3 seems kind of unprincipled. Also, since fmgr.h is included
>> so widely, I doubt it is buying very much in terms of reducing header
>> footprint. How bad is it to do #2?
> See this incremental patch set.
Wow, 41 files requiring varatt.h is a lot fewer than I would have guessed.
I think that bears out my feeling that fmgr.h wasn't a great location:
I count 117 #includes of that, many of which are in .h files themselves
so that many more .c files would be required to read them.
(You did check that this passes cpluspluscheck/headerscheck, right?)
> It seems like maybe there is some intermediate abstraction that a lot of
> these places should be using that we haven't thought of yet.
Hmm. Perhaps, but I think I'm content with this version of the patch.
regards, tom lane
