On 11/08/2014 12:37 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 5:55 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:31 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I thought the consensus was that the SQL-callable function
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 11/08/2014 12:37 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
Well, yes :) I missed that. Note that I am leaning to Robert's
direction as well to do a clear separation... Now if the final
consensus is different, then let's use the patch attached that puts
the SQL
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 1:00 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andrew Dunstan and...@dunslane.net writes:
On 11/08/2014 12:37 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
Well, yes :) I missed that. Note that I am leaning to Robert's
direction as well to do a clear separation... Now if the final
consensus
Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:31 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
I thought the consensus was that the SQL-callable function declarations
should remain in builtins.h -- mainly so that quote.h does not need to
include fmgr.h.
Moving everything to
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:31 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
I thought the consensus was that the SQL-callable function declarations
should remain in builtins.h --
Robert Haas wrote:
I personally think that's getting our priorities backwards, but
there's clearly a spectrum in terms of how much people care about the
cost of partial compiles, and I'm clearly all the way on one end of
it. I don't like having to think hard about where a function
prototype
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Robert Haas wrote:
I personally think that's getting our priorities backwards, but
there's clearly a spectrum in terms of how much people care about the
cost of partial compiles, and I'm clearly all the way on one
On Sat, Nov 8, 2014 at 5:55 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Michael Paquier wrote:
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:31 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
I thought the consensus was that the SQL-callable function declarations
should remain in builtins.h --
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Le 14/10/2014 10:00, Michael Paquier a écrit :
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Robert Haas
robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO, putting some prototypes for a .c file in one header and
others in another header is going to make it significantly
Julien Rouhaud wrote:
I just reviewed this patch :
* applies cleanly to master(d2b8a2c7)
* all regression tests pass
As it's only moving functions from builtins.h to quote.h and update
impacted files, nothing special to add.
It will probably break some user extensions using quote_*
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:31 AM, Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Julien Rouhaud wrote:
I just reviewed this patch :
* applies cleanly to master(d2b8a2c7)
* all regression tests pass
As it's only moving functions from builtins.h to quote.h and update
impacted files, nothing
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 11:14 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO, putting some prototypes for a .c file in one header and others
in another header is going to make it significantly harder to figure
out which files you need to #include when. Keeping a simple rule there
seems
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:43:46PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
I personally wouldn't object plaing a #include for the splitof file into
builtin.h to address backward compat
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:04 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:43:46PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
I personally wouldn't object plaing a
* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 6:09 PM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:43:46PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
I personally wouldn't object plaing a #include for the splitof file
Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:04 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
No significant advantage will be gained by splitting it out and then
#including it; nobody's really going to fix their module builds until
they actually break.
On the
I wrote:
Michael Paquier michael.paqu...@gmail.com writes:
Are you referring to the Datum quote_*(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS) that are
still let in builtins.h? That was let on purpose to let all the SQL
functions within builtins.h but I'd be happy to move everything to
quote.h to make the separation
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
That's a 2/2 tie then AFAIK: Noah and Stephen express concerns about
the breakage, you and I would be fine with a clear breakage to make
code more organized (correct me if you don't feel this way).
Well, I think
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 10:44:39AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Started a new thread to raise awareness.
Ref: this comes from
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cab7npqr1ivd5r_qn_ngmkbolqmagbosj4wnpo8eybnn6we_...@mail.gmail.com
Thanks. You can assume I'm -1 on every header split proposal
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 05:19:27PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 10:44:39AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Started a new thread to raise awareness.
Ref: this comes from
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cab7npqr1ivd5r_qn_ngmkbolqmagbosj4wnpo8eybnn6we_...@mail.gmail.com
On 2014-10-11 17:19:27 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 10:44:39AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Started a new thread to raise awareness.
Ref: this comes from
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cab7npqr1ivd5r_qn_ngmkbolqmagbosj4wnpo8eybnn6we_...@mail.gmail.com
Thanks.
* Bruce Momjian (br...@momjian.us) wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 05:19:27PM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 10:44:39AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Started a new thread to raise awareness.
Ref: this comes from
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:43:46PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
On 2014-10-11 17:19:27 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 10:44:39AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Started a new thread to raise awareness.
Ref: this comes from
* Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:43:46PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
I personally wouldn't object plaing a #include for the splitof file into
builtin.h to address backward compat concerns. Would imo still be an
improvement.
Agreed. If the patch
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 7:09 AM, Stephen Frost sfr...@snowman.net wrote:
* Noah Misch (n...@leadboat.com) wrote:
On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 11:43:46PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
I personally wouldn't object plaing a #include for the splitof file into
builtin.h to address backward compat
25 matches
Mail list logo
