| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Markus Wanner <markus(dot)wanner(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: API stability [was: pgsql: Fix possible recovery trouble if TRUNCATE overlaps a checkpoint.] |
| Date: | 2022-04-08 07:13:47 |
| Message-ID: | Yk/gq9osXcNDoFM2@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 10:19:35PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> Yeah, that's exactly why I didn't do what Michael proposes. If we're
> going to go to this trouble to avoid changing the layout of a PGPROC,
> we must be doing that on the theory that extension code cares about
> delayChkpt. And if that is so, it seems reasonable to suppose that it
> might also want to call the associated functions.
Compatibility does not strike me as a problem with two static inline
functions used as wrappers of their common logic.
> Honestly, I wouldn't have thought that this mattered, because I
> wouldn't have guessed that any non-core code cared about delayChkpt.
> But I would have been wrong.
That's a minor point. If you wish to keep this code as you are
proposing, that's fine as well by me.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2022-04-08 07:27:44 | pgsql: Add contrib/pg_walinspect. |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2022-04-08 05:47:34 | pgsql: Remove error message hints mentioning configure options |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Davis | 2022-04-08 07:27:44 | pgsql: Add contrib/pg_walinspect. |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-04-08 07:10:49 | Re: Windows now has fdatasync() |