Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Code cleanup in the wake of recent LWLock refactoring.

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Craig Ringer
Тема Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Code cleanup in the wake of recent LWLock refactoring.
Дата
Msg-id CAMsr+YFD0HxUZqkVvbif7iuBS5hf1bpwJV2NMx2EqUiPLPhZMQ@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Code cleanup in the wake of recent LWLock refactoring.  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On 11 February 2016 at 00:21, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:

If there's a strong feeling that we should keep the old APIs around,
we can do that, but I think that (1) if we don't remove them now, we
probably never will and (2) they are vile APIs.

Yep.

Delete 'em.

Things regularly change between releases in ways that're visible to extensions, though not necessarily as obviously part of the extension API. The most obvious being at least one change to ProcessUtility_hook and probably other hook function signature changes over time.

It's a pain to have to #if around the differences, but better to export that to extensions than *never* be able to retire cruft from core. Lets not be Java, still stuck with Java 1.0 APIs everyone knows are unspeakably awful.

Delete the APIs, relnote it with the required changes and be done with it.

--
 Craig Ringer                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Pavel Stehule
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: proposal: schema PL session variables
Следующее
От: Anastasia Lubennikova
Дата:
Сообщение: Some refactoring of index structures .