On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2010-02/msg00174.php
>
>> I wonder if we should think about back-patching just the syscache.h
>> portion of that patch. It would simplify back-patching, and might
>> make life easier for people trying to write extensions that are
>> compatible with multiple PG versions, too.
>
> Not sure. Maybe it will make back-patching a bit easier, but we don't
> normally consider back-patching cosmetic changes, which is what this
> really is.
>
> I don't buy the suggestion that third-party extensions would be able
> to rely on it across versions. They can't know if they're going to be
> compiled against the latest minor release or not. So it's just a
> question of whether it'll improve matters enough for our own
> back-patches.
Well, you could make all the same arguments about backpatching
hstore(text, text) which you advocated, and we did, not long ago.
I don't actually feel terribly strongly about it; I just thought I'd
run it up the flagpole and see if anyone saluted. The day of
reckoning will come if and when we commit the patch to change
syscaches to 5 keys. At that point extension authors are going to
have a real pain in the ass on their hands.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company