Re: GetRelationPath() vs critical sections
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: GetRelationPath() vs critical sections |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 2787782.1740078676@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение |
| Ответ на | Re: GetRelationPath() vs critical sections (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
| Ответы |
Re: GetRelationPath() vs critical sections
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> Does anybody have opinions about whether we should keep a backward compatible
> interface in place or not?
I vote for "not" --- doesn't seem like there'll be much external
code affected, and we make comparably-sized API breaks all the time.
As a matter of style, I wonder if it'd be better to have these
functions write into a caller-supplied variable. That seems more
in keeping with most other places in Postgres, and it would save
a copying step in cases where the caller needs the result on the
heap. I realize that returning structs has been in C for decades,
but that doesn't mean I want some of our APIs doing it one way and
some the other.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: