On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. :-)
Err, that was supposed to be :-( As in sad, not happy. > 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
