* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > > * Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote: > >> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:43:46PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > >> > I personally wouldn't object plaing a #include for the splitof file into > >> > builtin.h to address backward compat concerns. Would imo still be an > >> > improvement. > >> > >> Agreed. If the patch preserved compatibility by having builtins.h include > >> quote.h, I would not object. > > > > That seems reasonable to me also- though I'd caveat it as "for now" and > > make sure to make a note of the reason it's included in the comments... > > Yuck. I think if we're going to break it, we should just break it.
I'm fine with that, for my part- was simply looking for a compromise,
and having a "deprecated" period of time seemed reasonable.
> No significant advantage will be gained by splitting it out and then
> #including it; nobody's really going to fix their module builds until
> they actually break.
Well, hopefully folks on -hackers would, though I agree that others
aren't likely to.
> What I find strange about the actual patch is that it moves some but
> not all of the prototypes for the stuff that ends up in quote.c into
> quote.h. That doesn't seem right.
Agreed.
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
