On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 1:00 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes: >> On 11/08/2014 12:37 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >>> Well, yes :) I missed that. Note that I am leaning to Robert's >>> direction as well to do a clear separation... Now if the final >>> consensus is different, then let's use the patch attached that puts >>> the SQL functions to builtins.h, and the rest in quote.h. > >> I am unlcear about what the consensus is on this, and don't have strong >> feelings either way. Do we need a vote? It's not of earth-shattering >> importance, but my slight inclination would be to do the minimally >> invasive thing where there is disagreement. > > Well, the minimally invasive thing would be to reject the patch > altogether. Do we really need this? > > In a quick look, the patch seems to result in strictly increasing the > number of #include's needed, which ISTM is not a positive sign for a > refactoring, especially given the number of files it hits. If there > had been some #include's removed as well, I'd be happier. Let's do so then. I marked it as rejected. -- Michael
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
