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
