Re: Further simplification of c.h's #include section

On Wed, Nov 15, 2017 at 4:32 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> I have no objection to trying to clean things up in that area, but I
>>> request a less-lame filename than win32_2.h
>
>> Sure, if you have a suggestion.
>
> How do you feel about "win32_more.h"?

Seems morally equivalent to what you had before.  I think what I would
be looking for is a filename that somehow conveys what the difference
is between what should go in the existing file and what should go in
the new file.  If we don't know, maybe we should find out before we
change things.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company