Обсуждение: [DOCS] Change wording for PG_MODULE_MAGIC inclusion

With 8.1 being fairly far down on the EOL list, it seems about time to update
the docs regarding PG_MODULE_MAGIC to mention the pre-8.2 #ifdef guards as an
exception and not the default.  Not sure if a Note should be used, or just a
paragraph, so opted for a paragraph.

This also removes the last two occurrences in the code.

cheers ./daniel

Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
> With 8.1 being fairly far down on the EOL list, it seems about time to update
> the docs regarding PG_MODULE_MAGIC to mention the pre-8.2 #ifdef guards as an
> exception and not the default.  Not sure if a Note should be used, or just a
> paragraph, so opted for a paragraph.

Uh, why would anybody be reading the pg10 docs in order to compile
modules for 8.2?  I vote to just drop the suggestion that there needs to
be an #ifdef guard altogether.

--
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Uh, why would anybody be reading the pg10 docs in order to compile
> modules for 8.2?  I vote to just drop the suggestion that there needs to
> be an #ifdef guard altogether.

+1 ... if you are reading the current docs, they're going to tell you
lots of things that won't work in 8.1.

            regards, tom lane

> On 30 Aug 2017, at 16:35, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> With 8.1 being fairly far down on the EOL list, it seems about time to update
>> the docs regarding PG_MODULE_MAGIC to mention the pre-8.2 #ifdef guards as an
>> exception and not the default.  Not sure if a Note should be used, or just a
>> paragraph, so opted for a paragraph.
>
> Uh, why would anybody be reading the pg10 docs in order to compile
> modules for 8.2?  I vote to just drop the suggestion that there needs to
> be an #ifdef guard altogether.

I would not object to that, I was being a bit too careful I think.

cheers ./daniel

> On 30 Aug 2017, at 16:51, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> Uh, why would anybody be reading the pg10 docs in order to compile
>> modules for 8.2?  I vote to just drop the suggestion that there needs to
>> be an #ifdef guard altogether.
>
> +1 ... if you are reading the current docs, they're going to tell you
> lots of things that won't work in 8.1.

Patch updated with dropping the #ifdef guard paragraph.  Also removed the
mention of when the magic block was introduced as it seemed an odd piece of
archaeology to keep around when the guard paragraph was removed.

cheers ./daniel

On 8/30/17 13:28, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 30 Aug 2017, at 16:51, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>
>> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>>> Uh, why would anybody be reading the pg10 docs in order to compile
>>> modules for 8.2?  I vote to just drop the suggestion that there needs to
>>> be an #ifdef guard altogether.
>>
>> +1 ... if you are reading the current docs, they're going to tell you
>> lots of things that won't work in 8.1.
>
> Patch updated with dropping the #ifdef guard paragraph.  Also removed the
> mention of when the magic block was introduced as it seemed an odd piece of
> archaeology to keep around when the guard paragraph was removed.

committed

--
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

> On 31 Aug 2017, at 04:42, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/30/17 13:28, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> On 30 Aug 2017, at 16:51, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>>
>>> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>>>> Uh, why would anybody be reading the pg10 docs in order to compile
>>>> modules for 8.2?  I vote to just drop the suggestion that there needs to
>>>> be an #ifdef guard altogether.
>>>
>>> +1 ... if you are reading the current docs, they're going to tell you
>>> lots of things that won't work in 8.1.
>>
>> Patch updated with dropping the #ifdef guard paragraph.  Also removed the
>> mention of when the magic block was introduced as it seemed an odd piece of
>> archaeology to keep around when the guard paragraph was removed.
>
> committed

Thanks!

cheers ./daniel