On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 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.

Well, you could make all the same arguments about backpatching
hstore(text, text) which you advocated, and we did, not long ago.

I don't actually feel terribly strongly about it; I just thought I'd
run it up the flagpole and see if anyone saluted.  The day of
reckoning will come if and when we commit the patch to change
syscaches to 5 keys.  At that point extension authors are going to
have a real pain in the ass on their hands.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company

In response to

• Re: reassign owned to change the ownership for op class and family at 2010-07-03 15:47:53 from Tom Lane

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Bruce Momjian	Date: 2010-07-04 02:44:09
	Subject: test_fsync output improvement
Previous:	From: Alvaro Herrera	Date: 2010-07-04 02:15:23
	Subject: Re: _bt_parent_deletion_safe() isn't safe