On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
>> On 2016-12-16 11:41:49 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Thoughts?
>>> Hearing no objections, I've gone ahead and committed this.  If that
>>> makes somebody really unhappy I can revert it, but I am betting that
>>> the real story is that nobody cares about preserving T_ID().
>> I don't care about T_ID, but I do care about breaking extensions using
>> lwlocks like for the 3rd release in a row or such.  This is getting a
>> bit ridiculous.
> Hmm, I hadn't thought about that.  :-)

Err, that was supposed to be :-(  As in sad, not happy.

> I guess we could put back array_base/array_stride and just ignore
> them, but that hardly seems better.  Then we're stuck with that wart
> forever.

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:

Reply via email to