On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2016-02-11 08:50:41 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Are we thinking to back-patch this?  I would be disinclined to
>> back-patch widespread changes like this.  If there's a specific
>> instance related to Gin where this is causing a tangible problem, we
>> could back-patch just that part, with a clear description of that
>> problem.  Otherwise, I think this should be master-only.
> I'm not sure. It's pretty darn nasty that right now we fail in some
> places in the code if stdbool.h is included previously. That's probably
> going to become more and more common. On the other hand it's invasive,
> as you say.  Partially patching things doesn't seem like a really viable
> approach to me, bugs caused by this are hard to find/trigger.

I have never been quite clear on what you think is going to cause
stdbool.h inclusions to become more common.

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to