| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Spyridon Dimitrios Agathos <spyridon(dot)dimitrios(dot)agathos(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: CREATE UNLOGGED TABLE seq faults when debug_discard_caches=1 |
| Date: | 2022-11-17 17:51:28 |
| Message-ID: | 1907391.1668707488@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> I wonder whether we ought to back-patch f10f0ae42. We could
> leave the RelationOpenSmgr macro in existence to avoid unnecessary
> breakage of extension code, but stop using it within our own code.
Concretely, about like this for v14 (didn't look at the older
branches yet).
I'm not sure whether to recommend that outside extensions switch to using
RelationGetSmgr in pre-v15 branches. If they do, they run a risk
of compile failure should they be built against old back-branch
headers. Once compiled, though, they'd work against any minor release
(since RelationGetSmgr is static inline, not something in the core
backend). So maybe that'd be good enough, and keeping their code in
sync with what they need for v15 would be worth something.
regards, tom lane
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| backpatch-f10f0ae42-v14.patch | text/x-diff | 37.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2022-11-17 17:53:52 | Re: HOT chain validation in verify_heapam() |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2022-11-17 17:45:07 | Re: Assertion failure in SnapBuildInitialSnapshot() |