Tom Lane wrote: > I follow your reasoning, but I don't particularly want to make this > patch wait on a large and invasive refactoring of existing headers.
Sure. > As a down payment on this problem, maybe we could invent a new planner > header that provides just enough info to support amapi.h and fdwapi.h; > it looks like this would be "typedef struct PlannerInfo PlannerInfo;", > likewise for RelOptInfo, ForeignPath, and IndexPath, and real declarations > of Cost and Selectivity. Works for me, under the assumption that, down the road and without any rush, we can shuffle some more stuff around to make this whole area a bit cleaner. > Not sure what to name the new header. Yeah, this is always a problem for such patches :-( I have no great ideas ATM. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
