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: 
 <CAHGQGwHhfvrj682CfykVZ-2wiYSY6DppxbdObSncd_pGWwRakw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E1j03Ml-0002mD-Hj@gemulon.postgresql.org>
 <5261.1581103527@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAHGQGwFZ+KWahHGwqiJ676XHjHOoU_MKrS1gxie9zgw8pze+MQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <24554.1581123870@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAHGQGwHhfvrj682CfykVZ-2wiYSY6DppxbdObSncd_pGWwRakw@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com>
	message dated "Sat, 08 Feb 2020 11:01:59 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <29907.1581127702.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2020 21:08:22 -0500
Message-ID: <29908.1581127702@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 10:04 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> 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.

> So you are thinking to apply something like the attached to
> both master and v12? That sounds better to me.

No, you can leave HEAD alone --- renumbering the enum values in
master is fine, since we force extensions to recompile against
new major versions.  We just need to hold the values steady in
released branches.

Personally I'd keep SO_TYPE_TIDSCAN physically adjacent to the other
SO_TYPE_xxxSCAN entries in the list, but of course that's just cosmetic.

			regards, tom lane