Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> writes: > On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 02:09:09PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> I confess to not having been paying too much attention to your discussion >> with Fujii over the holiday, but isn't it a bit too late to be making >> client-API-breaking changes in 9.4? I would have been fine with this >> before RC1 went out, but once we do that, the branch should be treated >> as released.
> I had considered that, and one could make a reasonable case for living with > the new symbol on that basis. For the release candidate stage to have value, > though, the "treat as released" principle must not be absolute. I regret not > noticing the problem earlier. I don't plan to go to war over this, but it's not apparent to me that PQhostaddr was such a broken concept that we should risk library compatibility issues post-RC1. I will grant that *probably* there are no users of the function yet, but why do we need to take the chance? There are plenty of other access functions just like this one in libpq. I think the bar for deciding that we can break compatibility at this point is a lot higher than "well, maybe this isn't very useful". 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