> On 13 Oct 2023, at 04:25, Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 08:13:45AM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >>> On 26 Sep 2023, at 00:20, Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 11:18:00AM +0900, bt23nguyent wrote: >>>> -basic_archive_configured(ArchiveModuleState *state) >>>> +basic_archive_configured(ArchiveModuleState *state, char **logdetail) >>> >>> Could we do something more like GUC_check_errdetail() instead to maintain >>> backward compatibility with v16? >> >> We'd still need something exported to call into which isn't in 16, so it >> wouldn't be more than optically backwards compatible since a module written >> for >> 17 won't compile for 16, or am I missing something? > > I only mean that a module written for v16 could continue to be used in v17 > without any changes. You are right that a module that uses this new > functionality wouldn't compile for v16.
Sure, but that also means that few if any existing modules will be updated to provide this =). > But IMHO the interface is nicer, That's a more compelling reason IMO. I'm not sure if I prefer the GUC_check_errdetail-like approach better, I would for sure not be opposed to reviewing a version of the patch doing it that way. Tung Nguyen: are you interested in updating the patch along these lines suggested by Nathan? > since module authors wouldn't need to worry about allocating the space > for the string or formatting the message. Well, they still need to format it; and calling <new_api>_errdetail(msg), pstrdup(msg) or psprintf(msg) isn't a world of difference. -- Daniel Gustafsson
