Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2016-03-10 15:03:41 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> What it encourages is having module boundaries that actually mean
>> something, as well as code that can be refactored without having
>> to worry about which extensions will complain about it.

> I personally think it's entirely fine to break extensions if it's adding
> or removing a few parameters or somesuch. That's easy enough fixed.

I don't want to promise that the *behavior* of those functions remains
stable. As an example, none of them any longer do any internal cost
calculations, which is a change that doesn't directly show in their
argument lists but will break extensions just as surely (and more
silently) as an argument-list change would do. And no, that change
is NOT going to get undone.

> Would you rather add back the exports or should I?

I'll do it ... just send me the list.

regards, tom lane