On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2017-09-15 16:45:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: >> > Version correcting these is attached. Thanks! >> >> I'd vote for undoing the s/st_activity/st_activity_raw/g business. >> That may have been useful while writing the patch, to ensure you >> found all the references; but it's just creating a lot of unnecessary >> delta in the final code, with the attendant hazards for back-patches. > > I was wondering about that too (see [1]). My only concern is that some > extensions out there might be accessing the string expecting it to be > properly truncated. The rename at least forces them to look for the new > name... I'm slightly in favor of keeping the rename, it doesn't seem > likely to cause a lot of backpatch pain.
I tend to agree with you, but it's not a huge deal either way. Even if somebody fails to update third-party code that touches this, a lot of times it'll work anyway. But that very fact is, of course, why it would be slightly better to break it explicitly. -- 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
