On Fri, Jul 8, 2022 at 1:09 PM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 03:43:03PM -0400, Joe Conway wrote: > > On 7/7/22 15:00, Tom Lane wrote: > >> The aspect that is a bit more debatable is whether to trouble with > >> a set_config_option() wrapper to avoid the API break in v15. > >> I think we'd still be making people deal with an API break in v16, > >> so making them do it this year rather than next doesn't seem like > >> a big deal ... but maybe someone wants to argue it's too late > >> for API breaks in v15? > > > > Well there are other API breaks that affect me in v15, and to be honest I > > have done little except keep an eye out for the ones likely to affect > > extensions I maintain so far, so may as well inflict the pain now as later > > ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ > > With my RMT and hacker hat on, I see no reason to not break ABI or > APIs while we are still in beta, as long as the GA result is as best > as we can make it. I have not looked at the reasoning behind the > issue, but if you think that this feature will work better in the long > term by having an extra field to track the role OID in one of the GUC > structs or in one of its API arguments, that's fine by me. > > If this requires more work, a revert can of course be discussed, but I > am not getting that this is really necessary here. This would be the > last option to consider.
The RMT has discussed this item further, and we agree an ABI break is acceptable for resolving this issue. -- John Naylor EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
