David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 16:09, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>> FWIW, it makes me a bit uneasy to change this function signature in
>> back-branches if that's the intention as I suspect that it gets used
>> in extensions.. For HEAD that's fine of course.
> I wondered about this too and questioned Tom about it above. There
> was no response.
Sorry, I didn't realize you'd asked a question.
> I just assumed Tom didn't think it was worth fiddling with in back-branches.
Yeah, exactly. Not only do I not feel a need to change this behavior
in the back branches, but the original patch is *also* an API change,
in that it changes the behavior of what appears to be a well-defined
boolean parameter. The fact that none of the call sites found in
core today would care doesn't change that; you'd still be risking
breaking extensions, and/or future back-patches.
So I think targeting this for HEAD only is fine.
regards, tom lane