| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: flags argument for dsm_create |
| Date: | 2015-03-19 16:10:03 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobzHrRXd-YWpZpguZQqbKveLHY4RO7zYiexvekm1sTGCQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:25 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 2015-03-19 11:21:45 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> One question I struggled with is whether to keep the existing
>> dsm_create() signature intact and add a new function
>> dsm_create_extended(). I eventually decided against it. The
>> dsm_create() API is relatively new at this point, so there probably
>> aren't too many people who will be inconvenienced by an API break now.
>> If we go ahead and create dsm_create_extended() now, and then need
>> to make another API change down the line, I doubt there will be much
>> support for dsm_create_extended2() or whatever. So my gut is that
>> it's better to just change this outright, and keep
>> dsm_create_extended() as an idea for the future. But I could go the
>> other way on that if people feel strongly about it.
>
> +1 for a clear API break.
I'm slightly confused. Does that mean "just change it" or does that
mean "add dsm_create_extended instead"?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-03-19 16:15:54 | Re: flags argument for dsm_create |
| Previous Message | Julien Tachoires | 2015-03-19 15:55:10 | Re: patch : Allow toast tables to be moved to a different tablespace |