Re: [HACKERS] libpgport vs libpgcommon

2013-10-18 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 10/16/13 10:10 PM, Noah Misch wrote: dirmod.c perhaps deserves a split into libpgcommon parts (e.g. pgfnames()) and libpgport parts (e.g. pgrename()). I have also come to this realization. I propose to move pgfnames to src/common/pgfnames.c. Hopefully there's not much more. I have also

Re: [HACKERS] libpgport vs libpgcommon

2013-10-18 Thread Alvaro Herrera
Peter Eisentraut wrote: On 10/16/13 10:10 PM, Noah Misch wrote: dirmod.c perhaps deserves a split into libpgcommon parts (e.g. pgfnames()) and libpgport parts (e.g. pgrename()). I have also come to this realization. I propose to move pgfnames to src/common/pgfnames.c. Please have a

Re: [HACKERS] libpgport vs libpgcommon

2013-10-18 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On Fri, 2013-10-18 at 16:00 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: Please have a look at my patch at 20130827215416.gf4...@eldon.alvh.no-ip.org particularly the checkdir.c file. Perhaps we'd like to put both these routines (which are related to directories) in a single file (directory.c?). In that

[HACKERS] libpgport vs libpgcommon

2013-10-16 Thread Peter Eisentraut
I wonder whether it was ever consciously decided what the dependency relationship between libpgport and libpgcommon would be. When I added asprintf(), I had intuitively figured that libpgport would be the lower layer, and so psprintf() in libpgcommon depends on vasprintf() in libpgport. I still

Re: [HACKERS] libpgport vs libpgcommon

2013-10-16 Thread Noah Misch
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 09:41:20PM -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote: I wonder whether it was ever consciously decided what the dependency relationship between libpgport and libpgcommon would be. When I added asprintf(), I had intuitively figured that libpgport would be the lower layer, and so