Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Vaishnavi Prabakaran
> <vaishnaviprabaka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I moved the cf entry to "ready for committer", and though my vote is for
>> keeping the existing API behavior with write implying read, I let the
>> committer decide whether the following behavior change is Ok or not.
>> "Reading from a large-object descriptor opened with INV_WRITE is NOT
>> possible"
> Thanks for the review!
After chewing on this some more, I'm inclined to agree that we should
not change the behavior of the read/write flags. There's been no
field requests for a true-write-only mode, so I think we're much more
likely to get complaints from users whose code we broke than plaudits
from people who think the change is helpful.
I believe it would be easy enough to adjust the patch so that we can
still have the refactoring benefits; we'd just need the bit that
translates from external to internal flags to go more like
if (flags & INV_WRITE)
descflags |= IFS_WRLOCK | IFS_RDLOCK;
if (flags & INV_READ)
descflags |= IFS_RDLOCK;
(Preferably with a comment about why it's like this.)
Another idea would be to invent a new external flag bit "INV_WRITE_ONLY",
so that people who wanted true write-only could get it, without breaking
backwards-compatible behavior. But I'm inclined to wait for some field
demand to show up before adding even that little bit of complication.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
