Re: [HACKERS] copydir prototype

2010-11-12 Thread Tom Lane
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
 This patch:
 http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=bb0fe9feb9fd75a6aaa960028a9f810c883b0fc4
 ...did not tidy up after itself as well as it might have.  In
 particular, it left the prototype for copydir() in src/include/port.h,
 while moving the source file from src/port/copydir.c to
 src/backend/storage/file/copydir.c.  I think this should probably be
 cleaned up, but I'm a little uncertain where the best place to put
 that prototype is.  I am tempted to just put this in a new header file
 named according to our usual conventions, namely
 src/include/storage/copydir.c, but since there's only one public
 function at present perhaps someone would like to argue for including
 it in some other, already-exstant header.

copydir.h I assume you meant?  Seems reasonable.

 A patch I'm working on needs to expose the copy_file() function, which
 is currently static to copydir.c, so maybe it would be preferable to
 rename copydir.c to copy.c and add the header as
 src/include/storage/copy.h.

-1 for that.  Aside from being generally opposed to inessential file
renamings, I think this will risk confusion with commands/copy.[ch].

regards, tom lane

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers


Re: [HACKERS] copydir prototype

2010-11-12 Thread Robert Haas
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
 This patch:
 http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=bb0fe9feb9fd75a6aaa960028a9f810c883b0fc4
 ...did not tidy up after itself as well as it might have.  In
 particular, it left the prototype for copydir() in src/include/port.h,
 while moving the source file from src/port/copydir.c to
 src/backend/storage/file/copydir.c.  I think this should probably be
 cleaned up, but I'm a little uncertain where the best place to put
 that prototype is.  I am tempted to just put this in a new header file
 named according to our usual conventions, namely
 src/include/storage/copydir.c, but since there's only one public
 function at present perhaps someone would like to argue for including
 it in some other, already-exstant header.

 copydir.h I assume you meant?  Seems reasonable.

 A patch I'm working on needs to expose the copy_file() function, which
 is currently static to copydir.c, so maybe it would be preferable to
 rename copydir.c to copy.c and add the header as
 src/include/storage/copy.h.

 -1 for that.  Aside from being generally opposed to inessential file
 renamings, I think this will risk confusion with commands/copy.[ch].

Good point.  OK, I'll just go with copydir.h then.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers