On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 11:43 AM Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 11:22:45PM +0800, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > > Hmm it will be more consistent with other functions but I think we > > would need to increase the pageinspect version to 1.8 and need the new > > sql file to rename the function name. And it will be for PG12, not > > PG13. If we have to do it someday I think it's better to do it in PG12 > > that the table AM has been introduced to. Anyway I've attached > > separate patch for it. > > Like Alvaro, I would discard this one for now. > > > I've attached the updated patch that incorporated all comments. I kept > > the function as superuser-restricted. > > But not this one. So committed. >
I had a few comments as posted in the previous email which I think we can address incrementally as the patch for those is produced. However, one point which I am slightly worried is the last one in my email. Are we happy with the name of the new parameter in the API decode_combined? Because if we decide to change that then we need to change the exposed API and I think in the ideal case we need to change the version as well, but I might be wrong and maybe the parameter name as committed is good enough in which case we should be good. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
