From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jean-Pierre Pelletier <jean(dot)pierre(dot)pelletier0(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Out arguments name of "pg_identify_object_as_address" function in 9.5.14 and 11beta3 |
Date: | 2018-09-05 15:49:36 |
Message-ID: | 29730.1536162576@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2018-Sep-03, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I do not think we can change the names of the output arguments;
>> it'd break existing queries. However, renaming input arguments
>> shouldn't affect anything. So I propose we make pg_get_object_address'
>> input arguments be named type,object_names,object_args for
>> consistency with the other function, and update the docs to match.
> Hmm, I don't think it's possible to rename input args without breaking
> working code either:
Yeah, Andrew noted the same ...
> That said, I haven't heard of anyone using these functions in code yet,
> so if we change it in 11 or 12 nobody is going to complain.
... and that's pretty much my feeling. It seems really unlikely that
anyone's using named-argument notation for pg_get_object_address, and
even if they are, it wouldn't be very painful to change, or just not
use the notation if they need cross-branch compatibility. I think it's
more useful in the long run to make the names consistent.
Will go take care of it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-09-05 15:57:11 | Re: Out arguments name of "pg_identify_object_as_address" function in 9.5.14 and 11beta3 |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2018-09-05 15:27:16 | Re: Funny hang on PostgreSQL 10 during parallel index scan on slave |