Hi,
On Sun, Aug 4, 2019 at 3:03 AM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2019-08-03 13:48:01 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > > On 2019-08-03 19:41:55 +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> > >> What API does that function break?
> >
> > > You need to call it, whereas previously you did not need to call it. The
> > > effort to change an FDW to get one more parameter, or to call that
> > > function is about the same.
I got the point.
> > If those are the choices, adding a parameter is clearly the preferable
> > solution, because it makes the API breakage obvious at compile.
>
> Right. I think it's a *bit* less clear in this case because we'd also
> remove the field that such FDWs with direct modify support would use
> now (EState.es_result_relation_info).
>
> But I think it's also just plainly a better API to use the
> parameter. Even if, in contrast to the BeginDirectModify at hand,
> BeginForeignModify didn't already accept it. Requiring a function call to
> gather information that just about every realistic implementation is
> going to need doesn't make sense.
Agreed.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita