Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: reassign owned to change the ownership for op class and family

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Asko Tiidumaa <asko(dot)tiidumaa(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: reassign owned to change the ownership for op class and family
Date: 2010-07-03 15:47:53
Message-ID: 11348.1278172073@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2010-02/msg00174.php

> I wonder if we should think about back-patching just the syscache.h
> portion of that patch.  It would simplify back-patching, and might
> make life easier for people trying to write extensions that are
> compatible with multiple PG versions, too.

Not sure.  Maybe it will make back-patching a bit easier, but we don't
normally consider back-patching cosmetic changes, which is what this
really is.

I don't buy the suggestion that third-party extensions would be able
to rely on it across versions.  They can't know if they're going to be
compiled against the latest minor release or not.  So it's just a
question of whether it'll improve matters enough for our own
back-patches.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: subhamDate: 2010-07-03 17:04:33
Subject: Needs Suggestion
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-07-03 15:32:09
Subject: Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group