| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Aleksander Alekseev <a(dot)alekseev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Cache lookup errors with functions manipulation object addresses |
| Date: | 2018-05-14 22:24:57 |
| Message-ID: | 20180514222457.GA1600@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 04:27:48PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I think we're better off adding a new function and avoid changing the
> signature of GetForeignServer et al. Or maybe rename the function and
> keep the original name as a compatibility wrapper macro.
On the other hand, if we make the change visible because of a
compilation failures, then modules would become aware of the problem and
react? I would not expect modules to set missing_ok to true anyway as
they expect those objects to exist, so I can live with a new function.
What about naming those GetForeignServerExtended and
GetForeignDataWrapperExtended?
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-05-14 22:32:52 | Re: Cache lookup errors with functions manipulation object addresses |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2018-05-14 20:41:54 | Re: Postgres 11 release notes |