On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >>> On 2016-02-12 12:37:35 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >>>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >>>> > I'm not really a fan. I'd rather change existing callers to add a >>>> > 'flags' bitmask argument. Right now there can't really be XLogInserts() >>>> > in extension code, so that's pretty ok to change. >>>> >>>> Yeah, but to what benefit? You're just turning a smaller patch into a >>>> bigger one and requiring churning a bunch of code that wouldn't >>>> otherwise need to be touched. I think Michael has a good point. >>> >>> It has the advantage of not ending up with an extra interface, that >>> we're otherwise never going to get rid of? If not now, when would we >>> remove it? Sure it touches a few more lines, but that's entirely trivial >>> mechanical changes, so what? > > Note: the patch has grown from 15kB to 46kB by switching to the > extended interface to the addition of an argument in XLogInsert(). > >> I don't feel that there's only one right way to do this, but I think >> Michael's position is both reasonable and similar to what we have done >> in previous cases of this sort. > > To be honest, my heart still balances for the Extended() interface. > This reduces the risk of conflicts with back-patching with 9.5.
Andres, others, what else can I do to make this thread move on? I can produce any version of this patch depending on committer's requirements. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
