On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 11:49 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Gurjeet Singh <singh.gurj...@gmail.com> writes: > > On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> 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. > > This is a bug fix, not a feature addition, and sometimes you can't fix > bugs without touching APIs that might be used by third party code. > So the question here is whether this bug fix is sufficiently important, > and on the other side how likely it is that anyone has already built > extensions for 9.2 that depend on IndexStmt or DefineIndex. I don't > think trying to treat it as a "policy" matter is helpful -- it's a > tradeoff. > I was hoping that we could fix the bug in released code without having to change the structure or the API, but if that's not feasible, I will withdraw my objection. > If you happen to know of EDB-private code that would be broken by > this change, telling us so (and why a mid-beta change would be > problematic) would be helpful. > I checked, and I don't see any EDB code that would be affected by this change. Best regards, -- Gurjeet Singh EnterpriseDB Corporation The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
