On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Tatsuo Ishii <is...@postgresql.org> wrote: >>> Fix committed/pushed from master to 9.2. 9.1 declares it as a static >>> function. >> >> Er, is that a good idea to back-patch that? Normally routine specs are >> maintained stable on back-branches, and this is just a cosmetic >> change. > > I'm not sure if it's a cosmetic change or not. I thought declaring > to-be-static function as extern is against our coding > standard. Moreover, if someone wants to change near the place in the > source code in the future, changes made to head may not be easily back > patched or cherry-picked to older branches if I do not back patch it.
True. But if any third-party code calls that function, you just broke it. I don't think keeping the back-branches consistent with master is a sufficiently good reason for such a change. -- 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
