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 20:50:57
Message-ID: 1058642.1623963057@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:
> On 2021-06-17 15:53:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.

> Sure, there's no promise. But I still think it's worth taking the amount
> of breakage more into account than pre beta?

Are there really so many people using the ProcessUtility hook?
In a quick look on codesearch.debian.net, I found

hypopg
pgaudit
pgextwlist
pglogical

which admittedly is more than none, but it's not a huge number
either. I have to think that fixing this bug reliably is a
more important consideration.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fabien COELHO 2021-06-17 20:53:26 Re: pgbench logging broken by time logic changes
Previous Message Tom Lane 2021-06-17 20:36:22 Re: Centralizing protective copying of utility statements