pg.ddx.io  pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Ash M <makmarath@hotmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: BUG #15572: Misleading message reported by "Drop function operation" on DB with functions having same name
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2019 17:31:43 -0500
Message-ID: <7757.1550442703@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKJS1f9=CdJotJBvjoQfNipPjaVXdDLN1+K-07QFehTGOYH+_g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKJS1f9nQyOcCdjJ0HP=DCRanDLOCp7+L2QCnR2BAXM-8Zh5vw@mail.gmail.com>
	<201901071454.wxkoyoq4s5qp@alvherre.pgsql>
	<CAKJS1f9t5_Zfc7KVYmpsMjW3BqR_rXv2B3C7i7qukwdh11+yjA@mail.gmail.com>
	<19400.1546994166@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CAKJS1f-2-wVsN5zXaKWdp4xOUkkstnoPo0Lis6RQ=AEo3_pcig@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKJS1f-ad5i_rtnRQiU4sE5L8M3rZT-JEz7eT9KSqPH0Z-0cPQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKJS1f-6kdi2KyyCuHf4fM-Cuz4w99D1mMsOxhQEw2oaA5tW8g@mail.gmail.com>
	<13325.1549838359@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CAKJS1f9bAsZVodugqwAS6kSEtrOQKOEpdeBVJALR8iEZf9kHXg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20190212030927.GF1475@paquier.xyz>
	<CAKJS1f9=CdJotJBvjoQfNipPjaVXdDLN1+K-07QFehTGOYH+_g@mail.gmail.com>

David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2019 at 16:09, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>> FWIW, it makes me a bit uneasy to change this function signature in
>> back-branches if that's the intention as I suspect that it gets used
>> in extensions..  For HEAD that's fine of course.

> I wondered about this too and questioned Tom about it above.  There
> was no response.

Sorry, I didn't realize you'd asked a question.

> I just assumed Tom didn't think it was worth fiddling with in back-branches.

Yeah, exactly.  Not only do I not feel a need to change this behavior
in the back branches, but the original patch is *also* an API change,
in that it changes the behavior of what appears to be a well-defined
boolean parameter.  The fact that none of the call sites found in
core today would care doesn't change that; you'd still be risking
breaking extensions, and/or future back-patches.

So I think targeting this for HEAD only is fine.

			regards, tom lane




view thread (38+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <7757.1550442703@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../7757.1550442703@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/7757.1550442703@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
  Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com, michael@paquier.xyz, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, makmarath@hotmail.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
  Subject: Re: BUG #15572: Misleading message reported by "Drop function operation" on DB with functions having same name
  In-Reply-To: <7757.1550442703@sss.pgh.pa.us>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox