From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> |
Cc: | Steve Singer <ssinger_pg(at)sympatico(dot)ca>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Review: Fix snapshot taking inconsistencies |
Date: | 2010-10-04 14:31:26 |
Message-ID: | 649.1286202686@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Marko Tiikkaja <marko(dot)tiikkaja(at)cs(dot)helsinki(dot)fi> writes:
> On 2010-10-04 6:19 AM, Steve Singer wrote:
>> Is there any third party code in particular that your thinking of? I don't
>> see anything that says pg_parse_and_rewrite is part of a stable server
>> side API (in contrast to SPI or something an third party index access method
>> or custom data-type would call).
> Nope. I think I grepped contrib/ at some point and none of those were
> using pg_parse_and_rewrite() so this is all just speculation. And yes,
> it's not really part of any stable API but breaking third party modules
> needlessly is not something I want to do. However, in this case there
> is no way to avoid breaking them.
The important thing in such cases is to not break third-party code
*silently*. You want to make sure that they'll get a compilation
error if they haven't adjusted their code. Change the parameter
list or invent a new name for the function.
In the particular case at hand here, I rather wonder why SQL functions
are depending on postgres.c at all. It might be better to just
duplicate a bit of code to make them independent. pg_parse_and_rewrite
would then be dead code and could be deleted.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hakan Kocaman | 2010-10-04 14:44:23 | MIT benchmarks pgsql multicore (up to 48)performance |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2010-10-04 14:22:33 | Re: is sync rep stalled? |