| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-docs <pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Change wording for PG_MODULE_MAGIC inclusion |
| Date: | 2017-08-31 02:42:24 |
| Message-ID: | a5b8e59b-f23c-535f-896b-3594b4120622@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-docs |
On 8/30/17 13:28, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 30 Aug 2017, at 16:51, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>
>> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>>> Uh, why would anybody be reading the pg10 docs in order to compile
>>> modules for 8.2? I vote to just drop the suggestion that there needs to
>>> be an #ifdef guard altogether.
>>
>> +1 ... if you are reading the current docs, they're going to tell you
>> lots of things that won't work in 8.1.
>
> Patch updated with dropping the #ifdef guard paragraph. Also removed the
> mention of when the magic block was introduced as it seemed an odd piece of
> archaeology to keep around when the guard paragraph was removed.
committed
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2017-08-31 04:56:39 | Re: Change wording for PG_MODULE_MAGIC inclusion |
| Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-08-31 00:33:37 | Re: Row Level Security Policies documentation doesn't mention lack of support for views |