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 (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers