On 2 March 2016 at 00:03, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> True.  There is an API, though, and having pluggable WAL support seems
> desirable too.  At the same time, I don't think we know of anyone
> maintaining a non-core index AM ... and there are probably good
> reasons for that.  We end up revising the index AM API pretty
> regularly every time somebody wants to do something new, so it's not
> really a stable API that extensions can just tap into.  I suspect that
> a transaction manager API would end up similarly situated.
> <http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers>

IMO that needs to be true of all hooks into the real innards.

The ProcessUtility_hook API changed a couple of times after introduction
and nobody screamed. I think we just have to mark such places as having
cross-version API volatility, so you should be prepared to #if
PG_VERSION_NUM around them if you use them.

 Craig Ringer                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Reply via email to