Re: Centralizing protective copying of utility statements

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Centralizing protective copying of utility statements
Date: 2021-06-17 19:53:22
Message-ID: 1040162.1623959602@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> Phew. Do we really want to break a quite significant number of
> extensions this long after feature freeze? Since we already need to find
> a backpatchable way to deal with the issue it seems like deferring the
> API change to 15 might be prudent?

Uh, nobody ever promised that server-internal APIs are frozen as of beta1;
that would be a horrid crimp on our ability to fix bugs during beta.
I've generally supposed that we don't start expecting that till RC stage.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2021-06-17 20:13:56 Re: Add version macro to libpq-fe.h
Previous Message Robert Haas 2021-06-17 19:47:33 Re: Add version macro to libpq-fe.h