Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2024 at 1:25 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> IMO it'd be a lot better if numeric.c exposed whatever functionality
>> Ed feels is missing, while keeping the contents of a numeric opaque.
> We could certainly expose a bunch of functions, but I think that would
> actually be a bigger maintenance burden for us than just exposing some
> of the details that are currently private to numeric.c.
This whole argument is contingent on details that haven't been
provided, namely exactly what it is that Ed wants to do that he can't
do today. I think we should investigate that before deciding that
publishing previously-private detail is the best solution.
> Also, this seems to me to be holding the numeric data type to a
> different standard than other things.
By that argument, we should move every declaration in every .c file
into c.h and be done. I'd personally be happier if we had *not*
exposed the other data structure details you mention, but that
ship has sailed.
If we do do what you're advocating, I'd at least insist that the
declarations go into a new file numeric_internal.h, so that it's
clear to all concerned that they're playing with fire if they
depend on that stuff.
regards, tom lane
