On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Kohei KaiGai <kaigai@kaigai.gr.jp> writes:
>> I briefly checked your updates.
>> Even though it is not described in the commit-log, I noticed a
>> problematic change.
>
>> This commit reverts create_plan_recurse() as static function.
>
> Yes. I am not convinced that external callers should be calling that,
> and would prefer not to enlarge createplan.c's API footprint without a
> demonstration that this is right and useful. (This is one of many
> ways in which this patch is suffering from having gotten committed
> without submitted use-cases.)
I really think that reverting somebody else's committed change without
discussion is inappropriate. If I don't like the fact that you
reverted this change, can I go revert it back?
Your unwillingness to make functions global or to stick PGDLLIMPORT
markings on variables that people want access to is hugely
handicapping extension authors. Many people have complained about
that on multiple occasions. Frankly, I find it obstructionist and
petty.
If you want to improve the design of this so that it does the same
things more elegantly, fine: I'll get out of the way. If you just
want to make things impossible that the patch previously made
possible, I strongly object to that.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company