| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213(at)163(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: GetRelationPath() vs critical sections |
| Date: | 2025-02-20 19:11:16 |
| Message-ID: | 2787782.1740078676@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:
> Does anybody have opinions about whether we should keep a backward compatible
> interface in place or not?
I vote for "not" --- doesn't seem like there'll be much external
code affected, and we make comparably-sized API breaks all the time.
As a matter of style, I wonder if it'd be better to have these
functions write into a caller-supplied variable. That seems more
in keeping with most other places in Postgres, and it would save
a copying step in cases where the caller needs the result on the
heap. I realize that returning structs has been in C for decades,
but that doesn't mean I want some of our APIs doing it one way and
some the other.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sergey Belyashov | 2025-02-20 19:17:18 | Re: BUG #18815: Logical replication worker Segmentation fault |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2025-02-20 19:03:15 | Re: GetRelationPath() vs critical sections |