On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2010-02/msg00174.php > >> I wonder if we should think about back-patching just the syscache.h >> portion of that patch. It would simplify back-patching, and might >> make life easier for people trying to write extensions that are >> compatible with multiple PG versions, too. > > Not sure. Maybe it will make back-patching a bit easier, but we don't > normally consider back-patching cosmetic changes, which is what this > really is. > > I don't buy the suggestion that third-party extensions would be able > to rely on it across versions. They can't know if they're going to be > compiled against the latest minor release or not. So it's just a > question of whether it'll improve matters enough for our own > back-patches.
Well, you could make all the same arguments about backpatching hstore(text, text) which you advocated, and we did, not long ago. I don't actually feel terribly strongly about it; I just thought I'd run it up the flagpole and see if anyone saluted. The day of reckoning will come if and when we commit the patch to change syscaches to 5 keys. At that point extension authors are going to have a real pain in the ass on their hands. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
