> On Mar 18, 2019, at 7:34 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 10:14 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
>>> * Andres Freund (andres(at)anarazel(dot)de) wrote:
>>>> I don't think that should stop us from breaking the API. You've got to
>>>> do quite low level stuff to need pglz directly, in which case such an
>>>> API change should be the least of your problems between major versions.
>>
>>> Agreed, this is across a major version and I don't think it's an issue
>>> to break the API.
>>
>> Yeah. We don't normally hesitate to change internal APIs across major
>> versions, as long as
>> (a) the breakage will be obvious when recompiling an extension, and
>> (b) it will be clear how to get the same behavior as before.
>>
>> Adding an argument qualifies on both counts. Sometimes, if a very
>> large number of call sites would be affected, it makes sense to use
>> a wrapper function so that we don't have to touch so many places;
>> but that doesn't apply here.
>
> +1. I think Paul had it right originally.
In that spirit, here is a “one pglz_decompress function, new parameter” version for commit.
Thanks!
P