Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes:
> * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
>> I don't think that should stop us from breaking the API. You've got to
>> do quite low level stuff to need pglz directly, in which case such an
>> API change should be the least of your problems between major versions.
> Agreed, this is across a major version and I don't think it's an issue
> to break the API.
Yeah. We don't normally hesitate to change internal APIs across major
versions, as long as
(a) the breakage will be obvious when recompiling an extension, and
(b) it will be clear how to get the same behavior as before.
Adding an argument qualifies on both counts. Sometimes, if a very
large number of call sites would be affected, it makes sense to use
a wrapper function so that we don't have to touch so many places;
but that doesn't apply here.
regards, tom lane
