On 12/23/24 17:26, David E. Wheeler wrote: > On Dec 23, 2024, at 15:17, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> How would that work for extensions where the C code is intentionally >> supporting multiple versions of the SQL objects? > > I guess some people do that, eh? In that case it wouldn’t.
A function pointer rather than a version constant? Or a function pointer, to be used if the version constant is null? Regards, -Chap
