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:
>> 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
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.
The Enterprise Postgres Company
In response to
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|