On Sat, Aug 08, 2015 at 02:30:47AM +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2015-08-07 20:16:20 -0400, Noah Misch wrote: > > I agree that lock.h offers little to frontend code. Headers that the > > lockdefs.h patch made usable in the frontend, particularly genam.h and > > hash.h, > > are no better. > > It's not that simple. Those two, and tuptoaster.h, are actually somewhat > validly included by frontend code via the rmgr descriptor routines.
genam.h is a dependency of the non-frontend-relevant content of some frontend-relevant headers, _exactly_ as lock.h has been. I count zero things in genam.h that a frontend program could harness. The frontend includes hash.h for two hashdesc.c prototypes, less than the material you moved out of lock.h for frontend benefit. Yes, it is that simple. > > The lock.h/lockdefs.h unprincipled split would do more harm > > than letting frontends continue to pull in lock.h. > > Why? Your header comment for lockdefs.h sums up the harm nicely. Additionally, the term "defs" does nothing to explain the split. "lock2.h" would be no less evocative. > Consider what happens when lock.h/c gets more complicated and > e.g. grows some atomics. None of the frontend code should see that, and > it's not much effort to keep it that way. Allowing client code to see > LOCKMODE isn't something that's going to cause any harm. Readying the headers for that day brings some value, but you added a worse mess to achieve it. The overall achievement has negative value. nm -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
