From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
cc: Fujii Masao <fujii@postgresql.org>, pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Fix bug in Tid scan.
In-reply-to: 
 <CAHGQGwFZ+KWahHGwqiJ676XHjHOoU_MKrS1gxie9zgw8pze+MQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E1j03Ml-0002mD-Hj@gemulon.postgresql.org>
 <5261.1581103527@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAHGQGwFZ+KWahHGwqiJ676XHjHOoU_MKrS1gxie9zgw8pze+MQ@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
	message dated "Sat, 08 Feb 2020 09:35:10 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <24553.1581123870.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2020 20:04:30 -0500
Message-ID: <24554.1581123870@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 4:25 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> AFAICS, this patch has caused an ABI break in v12.  Do we really
>> believe that no extension references the values of the ScanOptions
>> enum?

> Yes, you are right. Some extensions may depend on it.
> It's better not to add new ScanOption not to break ABI.

I think it's okay to add a new value of ScanOption; what you can't
do is change the codes assigned to the existing values.  So I'd
just revert those code changes and give SO_TYPE_TIDSCAN a value
that's out-of-order.

			regards, tom lane