* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > Hm, sorry for missing this earlier. I think CatalogUpdateIndexes() is > > fairly widely used in extensions - it seems like a pretty harsh change > > to not leave some backward compatibility layer in place. > > If an extension is doing that, it is probably constructing tuples to put > into the catalog, which means it'd be equally (and much more quietly) > broken by any change to the catalog's schema. We've never considered > such an argument as a reason not to change catalog schemas, though. > > In short, I've got mighty little sympathy for that argument.
+1 > (I'm a little more concerned by Alvaro's apparent position that WARM > is a done deal; I didn't think so. This particular change seems like > good cleanup anyhow, however.) Agreed. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
