Andy Fan <zhihuifan1...@163.com> writes:
> Just to be clearer, I'd like work on the out function only due to my
> internal assignment. (Since David planned it for PG18, so it is better
> say things clearer eariler). I'd put parts of out(print) function
> refactor in the next 2 days. I think it deserves a double check before
> working on *all* the out function.
Well, sure. You *cannot* write a patch that breaks existing output
functions. Not at the start, and not at the end either. You
should focus on writing the infrastructure and, for starters,
converting just a few output functions as a demonstration. If
that gets accepted then you can work on converting other output
functions a few at a time. But they'll never all be done, because
we can't realistically force extensions to convert.
There are lots of examples of similar incremental conversions in our
project's history. I think the most recent example is the "soft error
handling" work (d9f7f5d32, ccff2d20e, and many follow-on patches).
regards, tom lane
