Re: obsolete code

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: obsolete code
Date: 2013-02-01 16:35:39
Message-ID: 510BEEDB.2030103@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 02/01/2013 11:20 AM, Tom Lane wrote:

> I'm not really thrilled with switching the default assumption to be V1,
> especially not if we implement that by telling authors they can stop
> bothering with the macros. The pain will just come back sometime in the
> future when we decide we need a function API V2. (I'm actually a bit
> surprised V1 has lived this long without changes.)
>
> Here's a different straw-man proposal: let's start requiring *all*
> external C functions to have an API-version block. We can add a
> PG_FUNCTION_INFO_V0(myfunc) macro for those people who are still using
> V0 and don't feel like changing their code (and you know they're out
> there). For the rest of us, this would allow emitting an appropriate
> error when we forget the macro.

Sounds like a good plan.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2013-02-01 17:04:45 Re: Streaming-only cascading replica won't come up without writes on the master
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2013-02-01 16:34:58 Re: pkg-config files for libpq and ecpg