On 2016-12-16 12:32:49 -0500, Robert Haas 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.  :-)
> 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.

Yea, I don't think that's good either.  I'm all for evolving APIs when
necessary, but constantly breaking the same API release after release
seems indicative of needing to spend a bit more time on it in the first
round.  I've a few extensions (one of them citus) that work across
versions, and the ifdef-ery is significant.


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

Reply via email to