Re: obsolete code

2013/2/1 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> My hope was that if we got rid of the old stuff we wouldn't need to use
>> PG_FUNCTION_INFO_V1(myfunc);
>> in external modules any more (I recently got bitten through forgetting
>> this and it cost me an hour or two).
>
> Oh. Well, that's entirely unrelated to whether we leave fmgr() around.
> fmgr() is the other end of the old call interface.
>
> 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.

I like this idea,

Pavel

>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers