Re: [HACKERS] src/tools/pginclude considered harmful (was Re: [PATCHES] toast index entries again)

2006-07-14 Thread Tom Lane
Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, 2006-07-14 at 14:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I would like to propose that we revert all the include-related changes >> of the past two days, and that src/tools/pginclude be removed from the >> CVS tree, until such time as it is rewritten to be much

Re: [HACKERS] src/tools/pginclude considered harmful (was Re: [PATCHES]

2006-07-14 Thread Tom Lane
Martijn van Oosterhout writes: > On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 04:24:59PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> After some reflection it seems that there is only one case where removal >> of a needed include file would not lead to a compiler error or warning, >> assuming gcc with ordinary -W settings (notably -Wmis

Re: [HACKERS] src/tools/pginclude considered harmful (was Re: [PATCHES]

2006-07-14 Thread Tom Lane
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> BTW, one of the remaining holes in pgrminclude is that it compiles with >> -fsyntax-only, which apparently causes it to fail to detect some errors >> of significance --- I assume that's how it managed to foul up lmgr.c, >> inet_net_ntop

Re: [HACKERS] src/tools/pginclude considered harmful (was Re: [PATCHES]

2006-07-14 Thread Martijn van Oosterhout
On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 04:24:59PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > After some reflection it seems that there is only one case where removal > of a needed include file would not lead to a compiler error or warning, > assuming gcc with ordinary -W settings (notably -Wmissing-prototypes). > That case is exac

Re: [HACKERS] src/tools/pginclude considered harmful (was Re: [PATCHES]

2006-07-14 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I agree with reverting. The tool looks pretty broken anyway, with hardcoded paths and all sorts of stuff quite apart from logic problems. Well, it's only intended to work on Bruce's system, so until someone else takes over the

Re: [HACKERS] src/tools/pginclude considered harmful (was Re: [PATCHES]

2006-07-14 Thread Tom Lane
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I agree with reverting. The tool looks pretty broken anyway, with > hardcoded paths and all sorts of stuff quite apart from logic problems. Well, it's only intended to work on Bruce's system, so until someone else takes over the position of chief grunt

Re: [HACKERS] src/tools/pginclude considered harmful (was Re: [PATCHES]

2006-07-14 Thread Andrew Dunstan
Tom Lane wrote: In combination with the amount of time wasted over the past two days, it is now perfectly clear that the existing pginclude tools are not NEARLY good enough to detect what they are breaking. I would like to propose that we revert all the include-related changes of the past two d