Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes: > I think the one possible argument against this approach might be that it > adds a field to the struct, so if you have an extension using a Slab > context, it'll break if you don't rebuild it. But that only matters if > we want to backpatch it (which I think is not the plan) and with memory > context checking enabled (which does not apply to regular packages).
Huh? That struct is private in slab.c, no? Any outside code relying on its contents deserves to break.
I do think we ought to back-patch this, given the horrible results Andres showed.