Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> The patch is certainly too invasive to consider back-patching into
>> 9.3, though.
> I feel unsure about this. I agree the patch is quite invasive. Leaving
> 9.3 in a broken state seems problematic. In particular I'm not sure
> what would Debian do about the whole issue; would they have to carry the
> patch for their 9.3 packages?
My recommendation to Christoph upthread was that they just look the
other way for the time being, ie, ignore the fact that relpath.h is
unusable by freestanding apps in 9.3. Backpatching what I did for
9.4 would be an ABI break, so that seems to me to be out of the
question in 9.3. And it's not clear that anybody outside core+contrib
really needs relpath.h yet, anyway. (Of course, you could argue that
if there are no external users then the ABI break isn't a problem;
but if there are, then it is.)
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
