"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I think we also should move the NumericData and declaration to numeric.c and >> make the Numeric type an opaque pointer for the rest of the source >> tree. > > I don't agree with that; we are not in the habit of doing it that way > for any other on-disk data type. All it will accomplish is to force > people to make private copies of the struct declaration, thereby > entirely guaranteeing that they fail to track changes. There will > always be legitimate reasons for external code to want to look at > on-disk bits. Well the macros to do so would become quite a bit more complex. I imagine they would become functions instead. I suppose a reasonable simple interface could be ginned up. But anyone currently accessing the data directly would have to go through the functions to access the bits. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
