| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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>, Jose Luis Tallon <jltallon(at)adv-solutions(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Implement uuid_version() |
| Date: | 2019-07-04 15:17:17 |
| Message-ID: | 30481.1562253437@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> I think the alternatives are:
> 1. We keep the code in both places. This is fine. There is no problem
> with having the same C function or the same SQL function name in both
> places.
> 2. We remove the C function from pgcrypto and make an extension version
> bump. This will create breakage for (some) current users of the
> function from pgcrypto.
> So option 2 would ironically punish the very users we are trying to
> help. So I think just doing nothing is the best option.
Hm. Option 1 means that it's a bit unclear which function you are
actually calling. As long as the implementations behave identically,
that seems okay, but I wonder if that's a constraint we want for the
long term.
A possible option 3 is to keep the function in pgcrypto but change
its C code to call the core code.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-07-04 15:30:36 | Re: [PATCH] Implement uuid_version() |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-07-04 15:12:26 | Re: [PATCH] Implement uuid_version() |