From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>
cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
        pgsql-committers <pgsql-committers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pgsql: Remove BufFile's isTemp flag.
In-reply-to: 
 <CAEepm=38U=A0Ftk3XV=yqHXubiCoG5mr6wxQpgxTnPVo5tJL=A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <E1eFVyl-0008J1-RO@gemulon.postgresql.org>
 <23339.1510887494@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20171117031149.hslkxis732hkjuog@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <24110.1510888651@sss.pgh.pa.us> <32216.1510935834@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20171117175811.qgrs75pgyhl42kgr@alap3.anarazel.de>
 <CAEepm=38U=A0Ftk3XV=yqHXubiCoG5mr6wxQpgxTnPVo5tJL=A@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>
	message dated "Mon, 20 Nov 2017 10:55:26 +1300"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <31531.1511128836.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2017 17:00:36 -0500
Message-ID: <31532.1511128836@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> On 2017-11-17 11:23:54 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I wonder whether we should then rename BufFileCreateTemp to just
>>> BufFileCreate, since it's no longer possible to have a BufFile that
>>> isn't temp.

> Here's a patch that does those things.  I'm slightly surprised by the
> renaming suggestion though, because it means that an extension that
> uses BufFile will need to know how to select the v10 and v11 function
> name as appropriate.  Would you backpatch redirect support for the new
> name to older versions?

No, but if you're concerned about it, we could maintain API compatibility
for extensions with something like

#define BufFileCreateTemp(interXact) BufFileCreate(interXact)

Typically we expect extensions to provide such workarounds for cases that
concern them ... but since this change is purely cosmetic, maybe it should
be treated differently.

			regards, tom lane