Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> If anyone squawks we could think about a
>> faster update ...

> That assumes that someone working on using the planner hooks will read 
> this thread - which might be reasonable - I guess they number of likely 
> users is fairly small. But if they might miss it then it would be best 
> to fix it ASAP, ISTM.

Well, it's not like we have never before changed internal APIs in a
minor update.  (There have been security-related cases where we gave
*zero* notice of such changes.)  Nor am I willing to surrender the
option to do so again.  If there's somebody out there with a real
problem with this change, they need to speak up.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

• Re: How embarrassing: optimization of a one-shot query doesn't work at 2008-04-01 02:12:06 from Andrew Dunstan

Responses

• Re: Re: [HACKERS] How embarrassing: optimization of a one-shot query doesn't work at 2008-04-01 05:51:11 from Guillaume Smet

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Guillaume Smet	Date: 2008-04-01 05:51:11
	Subject: Re: Re: [HACKERS] How embarrassing: optimization of a one-shot query doesn't work
Previous:	From: Tom Lane	Date: 2008-04-01 05:13:11
	Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Connection to PostgreSQL Using Certificate: Wrong Permissions on Private Key File

pgsql-jdbc by date

Next:	From: Guillaume Smet	Date: 2008-04-01 05:51:11
	Subject: Re: Re: [HACKERS] How embarrassing: optimization of a one-shot query doesn't work
Previous:	From: Andrew Dunstan	Date: 2008-04-01 02:12:06
	Subject: Re: How embarrassing: optimization of a one-shot query doesn't work