Florian Pflug <fgp@phlo.org> writes:
> On Sep28, 2011, at 00:19 , Marti Raudsepp wrote:
>> (I'm still not sure what "adt" means)
> I always assumed it stood for "abstract data type".
Yeah, that's what I think too. Over time it's been used to hold most
code that is a SQL-callable function, many of which are not directly
connected to any SQL datatype. Not sure if it's worth trying to clean
that up.
Another annoying thing is that "adt" should probably have been directly
under src/backend/ --- dropping it under utils/ seems just weird for
a category that is going to hold a ton of code.
(I had once had some hope that git would allow us to move code around
more easily, but my experiments with back-patching after code movement
have convinced me that it doesn't work any better for that than CVS.
So I'm not in favor of massive code rearrangements just to make the
source tree structure cleaner.)
regards, tom lane