| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Patch to mark items as static or not used |
| Date: | 2006-07-15 04:29:41 |
| Message-ID: | 13172.1152937781@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> The fundamental problem with find_static is that it hasn't got a clue
>> about likely future changes, nor about what we think external add-ons
>> might want ...
> OK, I don't really have a clue either. Is any of it valid?
I don't object to static-izing AlterOpClassOwner_oid or
RenameRewriteRule, and I defer to Teodor about the gist and gin
functions. The others range somewhere between "no" and "hell no".
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2006-07-15 04:40:54 | Re: Patch to mark items as static or not used |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-07-15 04:11:18 | Re: Patch to mark items as static or not used |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2006-07-15 04:40:54 | Re: Patch to mark items as static or not used |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-07-15 04:11:18 | Re: Patch to mark items as static or not used |