Re: GetRelationPath() vs critical sections
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: GetRelationPath() vs critical sections |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 2787782.1740078676@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
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: