Re: Centralizing protective copying of utility statements

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Centralizing protective copying of utility statements
Date: 2021-06-17 20:17:22
Message-ID: 20210617201722.c54pjyf3mxlvamqq@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2021-06-17 15:53:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > Phew. Do we really want to break a quite significant number of
> > extensions this long after feature freeze? Since we already need to find
> > a backpatchable way to deal with the issue it seems like deferring the
> > API change to 15 might be prudent?
>
> Uh, nobody ever promised that server-internal APIs are frozen as of beta1;
> that would be a horrid crimp on our ability to fix bugs during beta.

Sure, there's no promise. But I still think it's worth taking the amount
of breakage more into account than pre beta?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Dilger 2021-06-17 20:18:38 Optionally automatically disable logical replication subscriptions on error
Previous Message Tom Lane 2021-06-17 20:13:56 Re: Add version macro to libpq-fe.h