On 10/03/2017 04:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: >> On 2017-10-03 16:34:38 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote: >>> AFAICT at a quick glance these are only used in a couple of files. Maybe >>> the defs need to be floated off to a different header with more limited >>> inclusion? >> Why not just rename them to PG_PM etc? If we force potential external >> users to do some changes, we can use more unique names just as well - >> the effort to adapt won't be meaningfully higher... IMNSHO there's not >> much excuse for defining macros like PM globally. > I like the new-header-file idea because it will result in minimal code > churn and thus minimal back-patching hazards. > > I do *not* like "PG_PM". For our own purposes that adds no uniqueness > at all. If we're to touch these symbols then I'd go for names like > "DATETIME_PM". Or maybe "DT_PM" ... there's a little bit of precedent > for the DT_ prefix already. > >
Yeah. If we use a prefix +1 for DT_. If we do that then I think they should *all* be prefixed, not just the ones we know of conflicts for. cheers andrew -- Andrew Dunstan https://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
