On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 1:01 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 12:56 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >> On 2016-02-12 12:37:35 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 4:18 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: >>> > I'm not really a fan. I'd rather change existing callers to add a >>> > 'flags' bitmask argument. Right now there can't really be XLogInserts() >>> > in extension code, so that's pretty ok to change. >>> >>> Yeah, but to what benefit? You're just turning a smaller patch into a >>> bigger one and requiring churning a bunch of code that wouldn't >>> otherwise need to be touched. I think Michael has a good point. >> >> It has the advantage of not ending up with an extra interface, that >> we're otherwise never going to get rid of? If not now, when would we >> remove it? Sure it touches a few more lines, but that's entirely trivial >> mechanical changes, so what?
Note: the patch has grown from 15kB to 46kB by switching to the extended interface to the addition of an argument in XLogInsert(). > I don't feel that there's only one right way to do this, but I think > Michael's position is both reasonable and similar to what we have done > in previous cases of this sort. To be honest, my heart still balances for the Extended() interface. This reduces the risk of conflicts with back-patching with 9.5. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers