unnecessary #include "pg_getopt.h"?

On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 06:48:37PM +0900, torikoshia wrote:

While working on [1], I thought there seems to be unnecessary #include
"pg_getopt.h".
getopt_long.h has already included pg_getopt.h, but some files include both
getopt.h and getopt_long.h.

Right, these could be removed. I am not seeing other places in the
tree that include both. That's always nice to clean up.
--
Michael

Hi,

On 2023-05-24 09:59:18 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:

On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 06:48:37PM +0900, torikoshia wrote:

While working on [1], I thought there seems to be unnecessary #include
"pg_getopt.h".
getopt_long.h has already included pg_getopt.h, but some files include both
getopt.h and getopt_long.h.

Right, these could be removed. I am not seeing other places in the
tree that include both. That's always nice to clean up.

This feels more like a matter of taste to me than anything. At least some of
the files touched in the patch use optarg, opterr etc. - which are declared in
pg_getopt.h. Making it reasonable to directly include pg_getopt.h.

I don't really see a need to change anything here?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 06:37:59PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:

This feels more like a matter of taste to me than anything.

Yup, it is.

At least some of
the files touched in the patch use optarg, opterr etc. - which are declared in
pg_getopt.h. Making it reasonable to directly include pg_getopt.h.

getopt_long.h is included in 21 places of src/bin/, with all of them
touching optarg, while only four of them include pg_getopt.h. So
removing them as suggested makes sense. I agree with the tasting
matter as well, still there is also a consistency matter.
--
Michael