Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> writes: > ... I think it should. > It'll break some extensions, so we should warn people about it more > prominently. Robert's text lower down in the release notes is fine, > but we should put a more prominent warning at the top with the other > backwards compatibility breakage.
I don't think so. It's always been the case that the compatibility warnings section considers only SQL-level incompatibilities, and if you have C code to maintain you'd better go read the "Source Code" changes. This isn't even a particularly large or difficult-to-deal-with change, nor is there any chance that it will get overlooked (since your code won't compile). So I don't think it deserves more pride of place than similar issues have gotten in prior cycles. As examples, consider these 9.3 "Source Code" items: * Remove typedefs for int2/int4 as they are better represented as int16/int32 (Peter Eisentraut) * Use a 64-bit integer to represent WAL positions (XLogRecPtr) instead of two 32-bit integers (Heikki Linnakangas) Generally, tools that need to read the WAL format will need to be adjusted. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers