Robert Haas <> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Joe Conway <> wrote:
>> Any objections?

> I'm guessing Tom's going to have a strong feeling about whether 0001a
> is the right way to address the stdbool issue,

I will?  [ looks ... ]  Yup, you're right.

I doubt that works at all, TBH.  What I'd expect to happen with a
typical compiler is a complaint about redefinition of typedef bool,
because c.h already declared it and here this fragment is doing
so again.  It'd make sense to me to do

+ #ifdef bool
+ #undef bool
+ #endif

to get rid of the macro definition of bool that stdbool.h is
supposed to provide.  But there should be no reason to declare
our typedef a second time.

Another issue is whether you won't get compiler complaints about
redefinition of the "true" and "false" macros.  But those would
likely only be warnings, not flat-out errors.

                        regards, tom lane

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to