Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> writes: > 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. Yeah. There would be no good way for a v10 extension to know whether the additional hook is available --- it would have to know that at compile time, and it can't --- so I don't see that this is practical. Ideally we'd have noticed the problem before v10 got out ... so my own takeaway here is that this is a reminder to extension authors that they ought to test their stuff during beta period. regards, tom lane