| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Hitoshi Harada <umi(dot)tanuki(at)gmail(dot)com>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>, tomas(at)tuxteam(dot)de, "Ragi Y(dot) Burhum" <rburhum(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: knngist patch support |
| Date: | 2010-02-13 20:58:58 |
| Message-ID: | 8088.1266094738@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Just to be clear, I was intending this patch, at least, to be applied
> now. I actually think there's a good argument that we should do at
> least this much for 9.0, namely that now is probably the time when
> there are the fewest outstanding patches that will be broken by this.
> If we try to apply this for the first 9.1 CommitFest, then (1) it'll
> have to be completely redone and (2) it'll force massive rebasing.
What I think we should do is not change SearchSysCache for 9.0,
but provide the SearchSysCacheN macros as syntactic sugar, and
go around and change (at least most of) the call sites to use the
macros. This is clearly cleaner source code, and with that method
we'll still be ABI-compatible in 9.0 for anybody who doesn't fix their
source right away.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Teodor Sigaev | 2010-02-13 20:59:27 | Re: knngist patch support |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-02-13 20:52:45 | Re: knngist patch support |