On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 2015-03-19 11:21:45 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> One question I struggled with is whether to keep the existing >> dsm_create() signature intact and add a new function >> dsm_create_extended(). I eventually decided against it. The >> dsm_create() API is relatively new at this point, so there probably >> aren't too many people who will be inconvenienced by an API break now. >> If we go ahead and create dsm_create_extended() now, and then need >> to make another API change down the line, I doubt there will be much >> support for dsm_create_extended2() or whatever. So my gut is that >> it's better to just change this outright, and keep >> dsm_create_extended() as an idea for the future. But I could go the >> other way on that if people feel strongly about it. > > +1 for a clear API break.
I'm slightly confused. Does that mean "just change it" or does that mean "add dsm_create_extended instead"? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
