On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki <tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: >> From: Tom Lane [mailto:t...@sss.pgh.pa.us] >> To make this situation better, what we'd really need is a bunch of work >> to identify and document the specific APIs that we would promise won't change >> within a release branch. That idea has been batted around before, but >> nobody's stepped up to do all the tedious (and, no doubt, contentious) work >> that would be involved. > > I can't yet imagine if such API (including data structures) can really be > defined so that UDF developers feel comfortable with its flexibility. I > wonder how other OSes provide such API and ABI.
That would be a lot of work, for little result. And at the end the risk 0 does not exist and things may change. I still quite like the answer being the mix between 1 and 2: we do our best to maintain the backend APIs stable, but be careful that things may break if a change is proving to be necessary. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
