From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PL/Python warnings in CVS HEAD |
Date: | 2007-03-06 08:17:13 |
Message-ID: | 1173169033.6695.107.camel@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2007-03-06 at 00:18 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Sounds like #ifdef time to me --- but it seems a bit strange; wouldn't
> the Python guys have taken a bit more care for compatibility of
> user-supplied code?
Yeah, I was a bit surprised as well. I won't claim to have any
familiarity with the Python C API, though. Py_Deprecated() is simply
defined as:
/* Py_DEPRECATED(version)
* Declare a variable, type, or function deprecated.
* Usage:
* extern int old_var Py_DEPRECATED(2.3);
* typedef int T1 Py_DEPRECATED(2.4);
* extern int x() Py_DEPRECATED(2.5);
*/
#if defined(__GNUC__) && ((__GNUC__ >= 4) || \
(__GNUC__ == 3) && (__GNUC_MINOR__ >= 1))
#define Py_DEPRECATED(VERSION_UNUSED) __attribute__((__deprecated__))
#else
#define Py_DEPRECATED(VERSION_UNUSED)
#endif
> Perhaps they provide a compatibility hack that you didn't spot?
Quite possibly. Anyone have any suggestions?
-Neil
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | sharath kumar | 2007-03-06 08:20:34 | user-defined tree methods in GIST |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-03-06 08:14:54 | Re: Bug: Buffer cache is not scan resistant |