| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: New "single-call SRF" APIs are very confusingly named |
| Date: | 2022-10-17 01:06:36 |
| Message-ID: | Y0yqnPQ89chU5oKw@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Oct 16, 2022 at 03:04:43PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Yes - it'd introduce an ABI break, i.e. an already compiled extension
> referencing SetSingleFuncCall() wouldn't fail to load into an upgraded sever,
> due to the reference to the SetSingleFuncCall, which wouldn't exist anymore.
Note that this layer should just be removed on HEAD. Once an
extension catches up with the new name, they would not even need to
play with PG_VERSION_NUM even for a new version compiled with
REL_15_STABLE.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-10-17 01:13:33 | Re: New "single-call SRF" APIs are very confusingly named |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-10-16 22:29:42 | Re: macos ventura SDK spews warnings |