| From: | Chapman Flack <jcflack(at)acm(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Euler Taveira <euler(at)eulerto(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Andrei Lepikhov <lepihov(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add Postgres module info |
| Date: | 2024-12-24 03:48:26 |
| Message-ID: | 676A2F0A.20904@acm.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/23/24 17:26, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Dec 23, 2024, at 15:17, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> How would that work for extensions where the C code is intentionally
>> supporting multiple versions of the SQL objects?
>
> I guess some people do that, eh? In that case it wouldn’t.
A function pointer rather than a version constant?
Or a function pointer, to be used if the version constant is null?
Regards,
-Chap
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2024-12-24 04:06:58 | Re: stored procedures vs pg_stat_statements |
| Previous Message | Yurii Rashkovskii | 2024-12-24 03:42:49 | Re: Add Postgres module info |