On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 8:24 PM Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat....@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 5:12 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 5:03 PM Ashutosh Bapat > > <ashutosh.bapat....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 4:58 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks, the patch looks good to me. I have slightly adjusted one of > > > > the comments and ran pgindent. See attached. As mentioned in the > > > > commit message, we shouldn't backpatch this as this requires a new > > > > callback and moreover, users can increase the wal_sender_timeout and > > > > wal_receiver_timeout to avoid this problem. What do you think? > > > > > > The callback and the implementation is all in core. What's the risk > > > you see in backpatching it? > > > > > > > Because we are changing the exposed structure and which can break > > existing extensions using it. > > Is that because we are adding the new member in the middle of the > structure? >
Not only that but this changes the size of the structure and we want to avoid that as well in stable branches. See email [1] (you can't change the struct size either ...). As per my understanding, our usual practice is to not change the exposed structure's size/definition in stable branches. [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2358496.1649168259%40sss.pgh.pa.us -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
