From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Fujii Masao <fujii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-committers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: Fix bug in Tid scan. |
Date: | 2020-02-08 02:01:59 |
Message-ID: | CAHGQGwHhfvrj682CfykVZ-2wiYSY6DppxbdObSncd_pGWwRakw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers |
On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 10:04 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 4:25 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> AFAICS, this patch has caused an ABI break in v12. Do we really
> >> believe that no extension references the values of the ScanOptions
> >> enum?
>
> > Yes, you are right. Some extensions may depend on it.
> > It's better not to add new ScanOption not to break ABI.
>
> I think it's okay to add a new value of ScanOption; what you can't
> do is change the codes assigned to the existing values. So I'd
> just revert those code changes and give SO_TYPE_TIDSCAN a value
> that's out-of-order.
So you are thinking to apply something like the attached to
both master and v12? That sounds better to me.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
dont_break_abi_v2.patch | application/octet-stream | 896 bytes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-02-08 02:08:22 | Re: pgsql: Fix bug in Tid scan. |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-02-08 01:04:30 | Re: pgsql: Fix bug in Tid scan. |