| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: partition routing layering in nodeModifyTable.c |
| Date: | 2019-08-03 17:48:01 |
| Message-ID: | 18542.1564854481@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 2019-08-03 19:41:55 +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
>> What API does that function break?
> You need to call it, whereas previously you did not need to call it. The
> effort to change an FDW to get one more parameter, or to call that
> function is about the same.
If those are the choices, adding a parameter is clearly the preferable
solution, because it makes the API breakage obvious at compile.
Adding a function would make sense, perhaps, if only a minority of FDWs
need to do so. It'd still be risky if the need to do so could be missed
in light testing.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2019-08-03 18:03:41 | Re: partition routing layering in nodeModifyTable.c |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-08-03 17:32:36 | Re: partition routing layering in nodeModifyTable.c |