On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2016-12-16 11:41:49 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Thoughts? >> >> Hearing no objections, I've gone ahead and committed this. If that >> makes somebody really unhappy I can revert it, but I am betting that >> the real story is that nobody cares about preserving T_ID(). > > I don't care about T_ID, but I do care about breaking extensions using > lwlocks like for the 3rd release in a row or such. This is getting a > bit ridiculous.
Hmm, I hadn't thought about that. :-) I guess we could put back array_base/array_stride and just ignore them, but that hardly seems better. Then we're stuck with that wart forever. -- 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
