From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Revert "Add libpq function PQhostaddr()." |
Date: | 2014-11-29 20:06:48 |
Message-ID: | 29559.1417291608@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> writes:
> On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 02:09:09PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I confess to not having been paying too much attention to your discussion
>> with Fujii over the holiday, but isn't it a bit too late to be making
>> client-API-breaking changes in 9.4? I would have been fine with this
>> before RC1 went out, but once we do that, the branch should be treated
>> as released.
> I had considered that, and one could make a reasonable case for living with
> the new symbol on that basis. For the release candidate stage to have value,
> though, the "treat as released" principle must not be absolute. I regret not
> noticing the problem earlier.
I don't plan to go to war over this, but it's not apparent to me that
PQhostaddr was such a broken concept that we should risk library
compatibility issues post-RC1. I will grant that *probably* there are
no users of the function yet, but why do we need to take the chance?
There are plenty of other access functions just like this one in libpq.
I think the bar for deciding that we can break compatibility at this
point is a lot higher than "well, maybe this isn't very useful".
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2014-11-29 20:53:39 | Re: pgsql: Revert "Add libpq function PQhostaddr()." |
Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2014-11-29 19:31:25 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Revert "Add libpq function PQhostaddr()." |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2014-11-29 20:53:39 | Re: pgsql: Revert "Add libpq function PQhostaddr()." |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2014-11-29 20:00:54 | Re: Review of GetUserId() Usage |