Re: Centralizing protective copying of utility statements
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Centralizing protective copying of utility statements |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 1058642.1623963057@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: Centralizing protective copying of utility statements (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Centralizing protective copying of utility statements
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2021-06-17 15:53:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Uh, nobody ever promised that server-internal APIs are frozen as of beta1;
>> that would be a horrid crimp on our ability to fix bugs during beta.
> Sure, there's no promise. But I still think it's worth taking the amount
> of breakage more into account than pre beta?
Are there really so many people using the ProcessUtility hook?
In a quick look on codesearch.debian.net, I found
hypopg
pgaudit
pgextwlist
pglogical
which admittedly is more than none, but it's not a huge number
either. I have to think that fixing this bug reliably is a
more important consideration.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: