Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mar abr 19 12:29:04 -0300 2011:
>> I'm intending to revert last week's patch in favor of this approach,
>> at least in HEAD. It'll be slightly more invasive than the previous
>> patch because of the API change for index_build, so I'm not sure whether
>> to back-patch or not --- comments?
> Maybe add a new function index_build_ext that has the API change, and
> keep the existing index_build as a wrapper that keeps the current
> behavior. In HEAD just change the API of index_build and make
> index_build_ext a macro on top of the function (or just make it
> disappear.)
Not sure it's worth that amount of trouble. index_build is pretty far
down in the nest of code that manages index (re)building --- is it at
all likely that third-party code is calling it directly?
And even more to the point, if there is such third-party code, we don't
want the fix to fail to operate when a reindex is invoked through that
code path rather than the core paths. So if you think there's a
realistic risk of this, we probably shouldn't back-patch.
regards, tom lane