On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 02:21:57PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2014-05-29 08:14:48 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On 5/27/14, 10:37 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > If you don't like this change, we can revert it and also revert the upgrade to 2.69.
> >
> > Nobody else appears to be concerned, but I would have preferred this option.
>
> I am pretty concerned actually. But I don't see downgrading to an
> earlier autoconf as something really helpful. There already was a huge
> portability problem with the current code. Avoiding the autoconf update
> for a while wouldn't have solved it. And in 5 years time the amount of
> portability problems will be much larger.
> Yes, it'd have been nice if this were done a month+ ago. But nobody
> stepped up :(. Seems like the least bad choice :/
One thing that concerns me is that we already had the problem that users
creating the uuid-ossp extension had to double-quote the name because of
the dash, and we have regularly questioned the viability of the
uuid-ossp codebase.
Now that we know we have to support alternatives, we are changing the
build API to support those alternatives, but doing nothing to decouple
the extension name from uuid-ossp and the dash issue.
Seems this would be the logical time to just break compatibility and get
a sane API for UUID generation. We could hack pg_dump --binary-upgrade
to map a dump of "uuid-ossp" to some other name, or hack the backend to
accept "uuid-ossp" and map that to something more sane.
I basically feel this change is making our bad API even more confusing.
I think the only good thing about this change is that the _user_ API, as
odd as it is, remains the same.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +