On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 02:45:22PM +0100, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > We can put the new member at the end of the struct, it shouldn't damage > anything even if they're using this struct -- which I find pretty > unlikely. The only way that could break anything is if somebody is > allocating/using arrays of it, which sounds even more unlikely.
Yes, that sounds unlikely. > If we don't want to accept that risk (for which I see no argument, but > happy to be proven wrong), I would suggest to use the foreach-pfree > pattern Michael first proposed for the backbranches, and the new memory > context in master. I think this is conducive to better coding overall > as we clean things up in this area. Is it really worth betting on nobody doing something that does a sizeof(PGOutputData) for the stable branches? People like doing fancy things, and we would not hear about such problems except if we push the button making it a possibility because compiled code suddenly breaks after a minor release update of the core engine. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
