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

Best regards,
Gurjeet Singh
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Reply via email to