From: | "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Robert Treat" <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Vote needed: revert beta2 changes or not? |
Date: | 2005-10-07 16:29:52 |
Message-ID: | E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E4CC328E@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us]
> Sent: 07 October 2005 16:57
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Robert Treat; pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Vote needed: revert beta2 changes or not?
>
> "Dave Page" <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> >> 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.
>
> Well, how many people want to vote for Andreas' suggestion of having
> both
>
> int pg_cancel_backend(int)
> bool pg_backend_cancel(int)
>
> with the former deprecated but still there for backward compatibility?
Oh no, what have I started!! :-)
Let's just make the change and let the few people affected modify their
scripts, otherwise this is gonna get very messy.
Thankfully I think we've all learnt from this :-)
Regards, Dave.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Aly S.P Dharshi | 2005-10-07 16:38:00 | Re: Vote needed: revert beta2 changes or not? |
Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2005-10-07 16:22:14 | Re: Vote needed: revert beta2 changes or not? |