On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 05:47:14 PM Tom Lane wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar ago 28 17:27:51 -0400 2012: > >> Also, is there any reason to consider just moving those defs into > >> heapam.h, instead of inventing a new header? I'm not sure if there's > >> any principled distinction between heap.h and heapam.h, or any > >> significant differences between their sets of consumers. > > > > [ yeah, there's quite a few files that would need heap.h but not heapam.h > > ] > > OK, scratch that thought then. So we seem to be down to choosing a new > name for what we're going to take out of htup.h. If you don't like > heap.h, maybe something like heap_tuple.h? I'm not terribly excited > about it either way though. Any other ideas out there? htup_details.h? That doesn't have the sound of "fringe details" that htup_private.h has.
Greetings, Andres -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
