On 2016-12-16 12:32:49 -0500, Robert Haas 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. :-) > > 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.
Yea, I don't think that's good either. I'm all for evolving APIs when necessary, but constantly breaking the same API release after release seems indicative of needing to spend a bit more time on it in the first round. I've a few extensions (one of them citus) that work across versions, and the ifdef-ery is significant. Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
