Re: ALTER EXTENSION SET SCHEMA versus dependent types

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: ALTER EXTENSION SET SCHEMA versus dependent types
Date: 2024-05-08 23:57:55
Message-ID: 950290.1715212675@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, May 08, 2024 at 07:42:18PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> One positive reason for increasing the number of parameters is that
>> that will be a clear API break for any outside callers, if there
>> are any. If I just replace a bool with an enum, such callers might
>> or might not get any indication that they need to take a fresh
>> look.

> Agreed. Another option could be to just annotate the arguments with the
> parameter names.

At the call sites you mean? Sure, I can do that.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nathan Bossart 2024-05-09 00:01:16 Re: ALTER EXTENSION SET SCHEMA versus dependent types
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2024-05-08 23:57:32 Re: bug: copy progress reporting of backends which run multiple COPYs