Hi, On 2021-06-17 13:03:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Here's a v2 that does it like that. In this formulation, we're > basically hoisting the responsibility for doing copyObject up into > ProcessUtility from its direct children, which seems like a clearer > way of thinking about what has to change. > > We could avoid the side-effects on users of ProcessUtility_hook by > doing the copy step in ProcessUtility itself rather than passing the > flag on to standard_ProcessUtility. But that sounded like a bit of a > kluge. Also, putting the work in standard_ProcessUtility preserves > the option to redistribute it into the individual switch arms, in case > anyone does find the extra copying overhead annoying for statement > types that don't need it. (I don't plan to do any such thing as part > of this bug-fix patch, though.) > > Barring objections, I'm going to push this into HEAD fairly soon, > since beta2 is hard upon us. Still thinking about which way to > fix it in the back branches.
Phew. Do we really want to break a quite significant number of extensions this long after feature freeze? Since we already need to find a backpatchable way to deal with the issue it seems like deferring the API change to 15 might be prudent? Greetings, Andres Freund
