On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2017-09-15 16:45:47 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>> > Version correcting these is attached. Thanks!
>>
>> I'd vote for undoing the s/st_activity/st_activity_raw/g business.
>> That may have been useful while writing the patch, to ensure you
>> found all the references; but it's just creating a lot of unnecessary
>> delta in the final code, with the attendant hazards for back-patches.
>
> I was wondering about that too (see [1]). My only concern is that some
> extensions out there might be accessing the string expecting it to be
> properly truncated. The rename at least forces them to look for the new
> name... I'm slightly in favor of keeping the rename, it doesn't seem
> likely to cause a lot of backpatch pain.
I tend to agree with you, but it's not a huge deal either way. Even
if somebody fails to update third-party code that touches this, a lot
of times it'll work anyway. But that very fact is, of course, why it
would be slightly better to break it explicitly.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers