Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> writes:
> Otherwise, why not simply move llvm C++ includes *before* postgres
> includes?
We've been burnt in the past by putting other headers before postgres.h.
(A typical issue is that the interpretation of <stdio.h> varies depending
on _LARGE_FILES or a similar macro, so you get problems if something
causes that to be included before pg_config.h has set that macro.)
Maybe none of the platforms where that's an issue have C++, but that
doesn't seem like a great assumption.
> They should be fully independent anyway, so the order should
> not matter?
On what grounds do you claim that's true anywhere, let alone
everywhere?
regards, tom lane
