Re: Vote needed: revert beta2 changes or not?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>
Cc: "Robert Treat" <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Vote needed: revert beta2 changes or not?
Date: 2005-10-07 15:56:50
Message-ID: 4990.1128700610@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
>> Also they
>> don't need to modify
>> scripts, can't they just write thier own pg_cacnel_backend to
>> return int
>> based on the boolean version?

> No, because you can't overload based purely on return type. I suppose
> they could write it to take an int8 pid or something, but that's a hack.

Well, how many people want to vote for Andreas' suggestion of having
both

int pg_cancel_backend(int)
bool pg_backend_cancel(int)

with the former deprecated but still there for backward compatibility?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-10-07 15:59:53 Re: [HACKERS] Patching dblink.c to avoid warning about open transaction
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2005-10-07 15:50:27 Re: [HACKERS] Patching dblink.c to avoid warning about open