From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-committers <pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: Remove BufFile's isTemp flag. |
Date: | 2017-11-20 00:06:15 |
Message-ID: | 20171120000615.36f32ayw67xyy3h6@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers |
On 2017-11-19 17:00:36 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> >> On 2017-11-17 11:23:54 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> I wonder whether we should then rename BufFileCreateTemp to just
> >>> BufFileCreate, since it's no longer possible to have a BufFile that
> >>> isn't temp.
>
> > Here's a patch that does those things. I'm slightly surprised by the
> > renaming suggestion though, because it means that an extension that
> > uses BufFile will need to know how to select the v10 and v11 function
> > name as appropriate. Would you backpatch redirect support for the new
> > name to older versions?
>
> No, but if you're concerned about it, we could maintain API compatibility
> for extensions with something like
>
> #define BufFileCreateTemp(interXact) BufFileCreate(interXact)
I don't really see a point in doing this renaming in the first
place. It's not like the Temp suffix has become inaccurate. I'd perhaps
not add it in the green field, but I don't see a need to change an
existing function name. If anything it seems confusing because you'd
miss something when trivially searching the history / comparing
branches.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2017-11-20 00:08:48 | Re: pgsql: Parameter toast_tuple_target controls TOAST for new rows |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2017-11-19 22:52:08 | pgsql: Parameter toast_tuple_target controls TOAST for new rows |