From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: flags argument for dsm_create |
Date: | 2015-03-19 15:25:45 |
Message-ID: | 20150319152545.GD26995@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2015-03-19 11:21:45 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> One question I struggled with is whether to keep the existing
> dsm_create() signature intact and add a new function
> dsm_create_extended(). I eventually decided against it. The
> dsm_create() API is relatively new at this point, so there probably
> aren't too many people who will be inconvenienced by an API break now.
> If we go ahead and create dsm_create_extended() now, and then need
> to make another API change down the line, I doubt there will be much
> support for dsm_create_extended2() or whatever. So my gut is that
> it's better to just change this outright, and keep
> dsm_create_extended() as an idea for the future. But I could go the
> other way on that if people feel strongly about it.
+1 for a clear API break.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-03-19 15:40:23 | Re: flags argument for dsm_create |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2015-03-19 15:23:59 | Re: assessing parallel-safety |