* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> A concrete example here is setrefs.c, whose responsibilities tend to
> change from release to release.  I think if we committed custom-scan
> as is, we'd have great difficulty changing setrefs.c's transformations
> ever again, at least if we hoped to not break users of the custom-scan
> API.  I'm not sure what the solution is --- but turning setrefs into
> a white box instead of a black box isn't it.

Yeah, this was my (general) complaint as well and the answer that I kept
getting back is "well, it's ok, you can still break it between major
releases and the custom scan users will just have to deal with it".

I'm a bit on the fence about that, itself, but the other half of that
coin is that we could end up with parts of the *core* code that think
it's ok to go pulling in these functions, once they're exposed, and that
could end up making things quite ugly and difficult to maintain going



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to