Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> I think the one possible argument against this approach might be that it
> adds a field to the struct, so if you have an extension using a Slab
> context, it'll break if you don't rebuild it. But that only matters if
> we want to backpatch it (which I think is not the plan) and with memory
> context checking enabled (which does not apply to regular packages).
Huh? That struct is private in slab.c, no? Any outside code relying
on its contents deserves to break.
I do think we ought to back-patch this, given the horrible results
Andres showed.
regards, tom lane
