On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:39:07PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Justin Pryzby <pry...@telsasoft.com> writes: > > FYI, I happened across this commit comment: > > 3f902354b08ac788600f0ae54fcbfc1d4e3ea765 > > | So, let's accept the removal of the guarantee about > > | the output tuple's rowtype marking, recognizing that this is a API > > change > > | that could conceivably break third-party callers of tupconvert.c. (So, > > | let's remember to mention it in the v10 release notes.) > > > ..but couldn't see that the commit or change is so referenced. > > Yeah, I see nothing about 3f902354b in release-10.sgml either. > We've had varying policies over the years about whether to mention > internal API changes in the release notes or not, but this one > I think does belong there, since it's a silent API break rather > than one that would easily be caught due to compiler errors. > Bruce, did you have any specific reasoning for leaving it out?
I doubt I saw that sentence in the paragraph. For long text like that, I am usually looking for "BACKWARDS INCOMPATIBLE CHANGE" or something like that. Sorry I missed it. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
