| From: | ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org (Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker ) | 
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> | 
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: Remaining calls of heap_close/heap_open in the tree | 
| Date: | 2019-10-17 11:34:44 | 
| Message-ID: | d8j1rvbr4ff.fsf@dalvik.ping.uio.no | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> Hi,
>
> On 2019-10-17 06:58:27 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> On 2019-Oct-17, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> 
>> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 01:04:50AM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > > Wonder if it's worth removing the backward compat ones from master? I
>> > > don't quite think so, but...
>> > 
>> > I would vote for the removal so as we'll never see that again in
>> > core.  Let's see what others think here.
>> 
>> Agreed.  There are enough other API changes that if an external
>> extension wants to keep using heap_* in their code, they can add their
>> own defines anyway.
>
> There's plenty extensions that essentially only need to change
> heap_open/close to table_open/close between 11 and 12. And it's
> especially the simpler ones where that's the case.
Would it be possible to wrap them in some #if(n)def guard so that
they're available when building out-of-tree extensions, but not when
building postgres itself?
- ilmari
-- 
- Twitter seems more influential [than blogs] in the 'gets reported in
  the mainstream press' sense at least.               - Matt McLeod
- That'd be because the content of a tweet is easier to condense down
  to a mainstream media article.                      - Calle Dybedahl
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-10-17 12:20:58 | Re: "pg_ctl: the PID file ... is empty" at end of make check | 
| Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2019-10-17 11:28:12 | Re: Proposal: Make use of C99 designated initialisers for nulls/values arrays |