From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jim Finnerty <jfinnert(at)amazon(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: add queryEnv to ExplainOneQuery_hook |
Date: | 2018-03-14 05:31:46 |
Message-ID: | 20180314053146.GB16179@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 05:36:26PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote:
> Hmm. I suppose we could have invented a new extended hook with a
> different name and back-patched it so that PG10 would support both.
> Then binary compatibility with existing compiled extensions wouldn't
> be affected AFAICS, but you could use the new extended hook in (say)
> 10.4 or higher. Then for PG11 (or later) we could remove the old hook
> and just keep the new one. I suppose that option is still technically
> open to us, though I'm not sure of the committers' appetite for messing
> with back branches like that.
The interactions between both hooks would not be difficult to define: if
the original hook is not defined, just do not trigger the second. Still
that's too late for v10, so I would rather let it go. New features are
not backpatched.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tatsuro Yamada | 2018-03-14 05:41:32 | Re: planner bug regarding lateral and subquery? |
Previous Message | Claudio Freire | 2018-03-14 05:28:54 | Re: Faster inserts with mostly-monotonically increasing values |