"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

Reply via email to