On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 05:36:26PM +1300, Thomas Munro wrote: > Hmm. I suppose we could have invented a new extended hook with a > different name and back-patched it so that PG10 would support both. > Then binary compatibility with existing compiled extensions wouldn't > be affected AFAICS, but you could use the new extended hook in (say) > 10.4 or higher. Then for PG11 (or later) we could remove the old hook > and just keep the new one. I suppose that option is still technically > open to us, though I'm not sure of the committers' appetite for messing > with back branches like that.
The interactions between both hooks would not be difficult to define: if the original hook is not defined, just do not trigger the second. Still that's too late for v10, so I would rather let it go. New features are not backpatched. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
