On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> While I was at it, it seemed like DefineIndex's parameter list had grown
> well past any sane bound, so I refactored it to pass the IndexStmt
> struct as-is rather than passing all the fields individually.
> With or without that choice, though, this approach means a change in
> DefineIndex's API, as well as the contents of struct IndexStmt.  That
> means it's probably unsafe to back-patch, since it seems plausible that
> there might be third-party code out there that creates indexes and would
> use these interfaces.
> I would like to sneak this fix into 9.2, though.  Does anyone think
> it's already too late to be touching these APIs for 9.2?

I'd like us to stick to the standard practice of not changing features/API
in beta releases.

Best regards,
Gurjeet Singh
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Reply via email to