On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Kevin Grittner <kgri...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 10:38 PM, Alvaro Herrera >> <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> I understand the backpatching pain argument, but my opinion was the >>> contrary of yours even so. > >> The other possibility would be to backpatch the no-op patch which >> just uses the new syntax without any change in semantics. > > That would break 3rd-party extensions in a minor release, wouldn't it? > Or do I misunderstand your suggestion?
With a little bit of a change to the headers I think we could avoid that breakage. The original no-op patch didn't change the executable code, but it would have interfered with 3rd-party compiles; but with a minor adjustment (using a modified name for the BufferGetPage with the extra parameters), we could avoid that problem. That would seem to address Álvaro's concern while avoiding five years of backpatch nightmares. I don't claim it's an *elegant* solution, but it might be a workable compromise. -- Kevin Grittner EDB: 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
