On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Kohei KaiGai <kai...@kaigai.gr.jp> writes: >> I briefly checked your updates. >> Even though it is not described in the commit-log, I noticed a >> problematic change. > >> This commit reverts create_plan_recurse() as static function. > > Yes. I am not convinced that external callers should be calling that, > and would prefer not to enlarge createplan.c's API footprint without a > demonstration that this is right and useful. (This is one of many > ways in which this patch is suffering from having gotten committed > without submitted use-cases.)
I really think that reverting somebody else's committed change without discussion is inappropriate. If I don't like the fact that you reverted this change, can I go revert it back? Your unwillingness to make functions global or to stick PGDLLIMPORT markings on variables that people want access to is hugely handicapping extension authors. Many people have complained about that on multiple occasions. Frankly, I find it obstructionist and petty. If you want to improve the design of this so that it does the same things more elegantly, fine: I'll get out of the way. If you just want to make things impossible that the patch previously made possible, I strongly object to that. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
