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.

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to