> On 31 Aug 2017, at 04:42, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>
> On 8/30/17 13:28, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> On 30 Aug 2017, at 16:51, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>
>>> Alvaro Herrera writes:
Uh, why would anybody be reading the pg10 docs in order to compile
modules for 8.2? I vote to just drop
On 8/30/17 13:28, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 30 Aug 2017, at 16:51, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>>> Uh, why would anybody be reading the pg10 docs in order to compile
>>> modules for 8.2? I vote to just drop the suggestion that there needs to
>>> be an #ifdef guard altogethe
> On 30 Aug 2017, at 16:51, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Alvaro Herrera writes:
>> Uh, why would anybody be reading the pg10 docs in order to compile
>> modules for 8.2? I vote to just drop the suggestion that there needs to
>> be an #ifdef guard altogether.
>
> +1 ... if you are reading the current do
> On 30 Aug 2017, at 16:35, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> With 8.1 being fairly far down on the EOL list, it seems about time to update
>> the docs regarding PG_MODULE_MAGIC to mention the pre-8.2 #ifdef guards as an
>> exception and not the default. Not sure if a Note sh
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> Uh, why would anybody be reading the pg10 docs in order to compile
> modules for 8.2? I vote to just drop the suggestion that there needs to
> be an #ifdef guard altogether.
+1 ... if you are reading the current docs, they're going to tell you
lots of things that won't w
Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> With 8.1 being fairly far down on the EOL list, it seems about time to update
> the docs regarding PG_MODULE_MAGIC to mention the pre-8.2 #ifdef guards as an
> exception and not the default. Not sure if a Note should be used, or just a
> paragraph, so opted for a paragra
