Re: SPITupleTable members missing in docs

Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>

From: Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Date: 2019-07-12T15:59:56Z
Lists: pgsql-docs
Hello,

>> To take into account Tom's comment, I'd suggest a middle ground by 
>> commenting a public and private part explicitely in the struct,
>>    typedef struct {
>>      /* PUBLIC members to be used by callers ... */
>>      /* PRIVATE members, not intended for external usage ... */
>>    } ... ;
>
> One problem is that the members we've retroactively decided are "public"
> are in the middle of the struct :-(.

Argh, I did not notice this tiny but relevant detail.

> But it occurs to me that there's no good reason we couldn't re-order the
> members, as long as we only do so on HEAD and not in released versions.
> That would make it a bit less inconsistent and easier to add labels
> such as you suggest.

Indeed. SPI-dependent extensions are likely recompiled between major 
version, so a reordering should not cause significant problems.

This mean that a simple doc patch is turned into a code patch.

-- 
Fabien.



Commits

  1. Clarify the distinction between public and private SPITupleTable fields.

  2. Prevent leakage of SPI tuple tables during subtransaction abort.