| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jose Luis Tallon <jltallon(at)adv-solutions(dot)net>, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Implement uuid_version() |
| Date: | 2019-07-05 14:27:32 |
| Message-ID: | 2273.1562336852@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2019-Jul-05, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> (There is also precedent for redirecting the extension function to the
>> internal one by changing the SQL-level function definition using CREATE
>> OR REPLACE FUNCTION ... LANGUAGE INTERNAL. But that seems more
>> complicated and would require a new extension version.
> One issue with this approach is that it forces the internal function to
> remain unchanged forever. That seems OK in this particular case.
No, what it's establishing is that the extension and core functions
will do the same thing forevermore. Seems to me that's what we want
here.
>> It could maybe be included if the extension version is changed for
>> other reasons.)
> Maybe add a comment in the control file (?) so that we remember to do it
> then.
I'm not terribly excited about that --- we'd still need to keep the
C function redirection in place in the .so file, for benefit of
people who hadn't done ALTER EXTENSION UPGRADE.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Antonin Houska | 2019-07-05 14:41:34 | Re: "WIP: Data at rest encryption" patch and, PostgreSQL 11-beta3 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-07-05 14:22:11 | Re: Inconsistency between attname of index and attname of relation |