From: | Gene Selkov <selkovjr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: genomic locus |
Date: | 2017-12-21 22:42:51 |
Message-ID: | BDC7F14B-72D6-4023-9BDB-55861C4B9E87@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On Dec 15, 2017, at 4:50 PM, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> If you wish to fix seg in some way, you could always
> patch them. But I am not sure what you are trying to fix, so more
> details would be welcome.
I was contemplating how much functionality I could borrow from seg to build another interval type and what unforeseen hurdles would emerge while I was digging into it. It turned out to be less straightforward than I thought.
>> I have seen a lot of bit rot in other extensions (never contributed) that I
>> have not maintained since 2009 and I now I am unable to fix some of them, so
>> I wonder how much of old knowledge is still applicable. In other words, is
>> what I see in new code just a change of macros or the change of principles?
>
> APIs in Postgres are usually stable. You should be able to update your
> own extensions. If you want to discuss about a couple of things in
> particular, don't hesitate!
Thank you Michael. I will summarize the problems I have already encountered in a later reply to this thread.
I do find the API to be unchanged, but I get the sense that some macros are new. Maybe it’s just my bad memory. Overall, I am pleased with a much better automation of extension building and testing.
—Gene
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gene Selkov | 2017-12-21 22:44:31 | Re: genomic locus |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2017-12-21 22:32:37 | Re: WIP: a way forward on bootstrap data |