On Thu, Jan 15, 2026 at 3:04 PM Oleg Tselebrovskiy <[email protected]> wrote:
> > So in v10 I separated the body of checksum_block to > > a semi-private header to provide hardware-specific definitions > > for core code, while also maintaining the same one that > > external code expects > > I like the usage of a semi-internal header, less code duplication > is always good Glad to hear it. > If I understand correctly, with how code is currently, > external programms can define PG_CHECKSUM_INTERNAL manually, > but then they won't have access to static functions inside of > checksum.c, so all you get is a pointer that leads nowhere, correct? Sounds right, but I'm not sure why an external program would define it, because it's named...drumroll.."internal". > I'd like to think that speeding up checksum calculation is something > that some external programms could appreciate. External programs are probably doing some one-off task, so I don't see a reason to work harder. > Also, not moving all those checksum files to src/port saves us from > thinking about problems with meson and current external programs, > but, I think, that after hardware checks are refactored, we could > revisit the question of moving checksum[_impl].h/.c to src/port. Refactoring the hardware checks is not going to make those two problems go away, and I don't understand why you want to move anything to begin with. -- John Naylor Amazon Web Services
