On 10/03/2017 04:43 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>> On 2017-10-03 16:34:38 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> AFAICT at a quick glance these are only used in a couple of files. Maybe
>>> the defs need to be floated off to a different header with more limited
>>> inclusion?
>> Why not just rename them to PG_PM etc? If we force potential external
>> users to do some changes, we can use more unique names just as well -
>> the effort to adapt won't be meaningfully higher... IMNSHO there's not
>> much excuse for defining macros like PM globally.
> I like the new-header-file idea because it will result in minimal code
> churn and thus minimal back-patching hazards.
>
> I do *not* like "PG_PM". For our own purposes that adds no uniqueness
> at all. If we're to touch these symbols then I'd go for names like
> "DATETIME_PM". Or maybe "DT_PM" ... there's a little bit of precedent
> for the DT_ prefix already.
>
>
Yeah. If we use a prefix +1 for DT_. If we do that then I think they
should *all* be prefixed, not just the ones we know of conflicts for.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan https://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, 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