On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 11:08 AM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > > Fujii Masao <[email protected]> writes: > > On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 10:04 AM Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I think it's okay to add a new value of ScanOption; what you can't > >> do is change the codes assigned to the existing values. So I'd > >> just revert those code changes and give SO_TYPE_TIDSCAN a value > >> that's out-of-order. > > > So you are thinking to apply something like the attached to > > both master and v12? That sounds better to me. > > No, you can leave HEAD alone --- renumbering the enum values in > master is fine, since we force extensions to recompile against > new major versions. We just need to hold the values steady in > released branches.
Yeah, you're right. > Personally I'd keep SO_TYPE_TIDSCAN physically adjacent to the other > SO_TYPE_xxxSCAN entries in the list, but of course that's just cosmetic. +1. So I will apply the latest patch (adding SO_TYPE_TIDSCAN just after SO_TYPE_ANALYZE) only to v12. Regards, -- Fujii Masao
