On 2018-09-22 08:54:57 +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 4:43 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> > > On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 4:06 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > >> Why would we fix it rather than just removing it?
> >
> > > I assumed we wouldn't remove an extern C function extension code
> > > somewhere might use. Though admittedly I'd be surprised if anyone
> > > used this one.
> >
> > Unless it looks practical to support this behavior in the Windows
> > and SysV cases, I think we should get rid of it rather than expend
> > effort on supporting it for just some platforms.
>
> We can remove it in back-branches without breaking API compatibility:
>
> 1. Change dsm_impl_can_resize() to return false unconditionally (I
> suppose client code is supposed to check this before using
> dsm_resize(), though I'm not sure why it has an "impl" in its name if
> it's part of the public interface of this module).
> 2. Change dsm_resize() and dsm_remap() to raise an error conditionally.
> 3. Rip out the DSM_OP_RESIZE cases from various places.
>
> Then in master, remove all of those functions completely. However,
> I'd feel like a bit of a vandal. Robert and Amit probably had plans
> for that code...?
Robert, Amit: ^
Greetings,
Andres Freund