Hello, On 2026-Mar-23, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> So the changes done in your patches make sense to me. > > I have 2 comments: > > 1/ wait_event.c > > -#include "storage/lmgr.h" /* for GetLockNameFromTagType */ > -#include "storage/lwlock.h" /* for GetLWLockIdentifier */ > +#include "storage/lmgr.h" > +#include "storage/lwlock.h" > +#include "storage/shmem.h" > #include "storage/spin.h" > +#include "utils/hsearch.h" > > hsearch.h is already included into shmem.h so its direct include is not > needed. > That said wait_event.c needs it so including it directly might make sense > just from > a coding "style" point of view (given that it is harmless as it is protected > by > ifndef HSEARCH_H). Hmm, right -- I don't need to add both. Done that way. I also made some alphabetical sorts and pushed this part. > 2/ Not directly linked to your patches > > It looks like that aio_funcs.c does not need lock.h (reported by > include-what-you-use). > If we remove its direct include, it's still indirectly included through proc.h > though. But I think that removing its direct include makes sense as it's not > needed at all. I'm not opposed to somebody else making this change, if they want, but I think there's little practical impact. -- Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "En las profundidades de nuestro inconsciente hay una obsesiva necesidad de un universo lógico y coherente. Pero el universo real se halla siempre un paso más allá de la lógica" (Irulan)
