Re: pageinspect's infomask and infomask2 as smallint

On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> I don't see any reason that the old version of the function couldn't be
>>> dropped in the upgrade script.  It's not likely anything would be
>>> depending on it, is it?
>
>> I don't see much point in taking the risk.
>
> What risk?  And at least we'd be trying to do it cleanly, in a manner
> that should work for at least 99% of users.  AFAICT, Heikki's proposal
> is "break it for everyone, and damn the torpedoes".

I must be confused. I thought Heikki's proposal was "fix it in 9.1,
because incompatibilities are an expected part of major release
upgrades, but don't break it in 9.0 and prior, because it's not
particularly important and we don't want to change behavior or risk
breaking things in minor releases".

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company