Re: Vote needed: revert beta2 changes or not?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Treat [mailto:xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net]
> Sent: 07 October 2005 16:36
> To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Cc: Dave Page; Tom Lane
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Vote needed: revert beta2 changes or not?
>
> On Friday 07 October 2005 03:50, Dave Page wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> > > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
> > > Sent: 07 October 2005 02:28
> > > To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> > > Subject: [HACKERS] Vote needed: revert beta2 changes or not?
> > >
> > > 2. Revert the result type of pg_cancel_backend() to int, but
> > > leave the
> > > rest as-is (minimum change to avoid a compatibility break
> > > with 8.0).
> >
> > +1 (I do know people who will need to modify scripts because of this
> > change), though I'm obviously not going to win having
> already scanned
> > the entire thread :-)
>
> I'm sympathetic to this, but doesn't it seem worse to have
> this one function
> return int if all the others return boolean?

It's not pretty, but then how many other names might we change these
days because they don't fit in with current thinking?

> Also they
> don't need to modify
> scripts, can't they just write thier own pg_cacnel_backend to
> return int
> based on the boolean version?

No, because you can't overload based purely on return type. I suppose
they could write it to take an int8 pid or something, but that's a hack.

Regards, Dave.