On 2015-03-19 12:10:03 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > 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"?
The former. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
