From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Centralizing protective copying of utility statements
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 16:50:57 -0400
Message-ID: <1058642.1623963057@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210617201722.c54pjyf3mxlvamqq@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <931771.1623893989@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<974666.1623943810@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<1026052.1623949409@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20210617192543.fgiffbsiyxdf47iz@alap3.anarazel.de>
<1040162.1623959602@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20210617201722.c54pjyf3mxlvamqq@alap3.anarazel.de>
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2021-06-17 15:53:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Uh, nobody ever promised that server-internal APIs are frozen as of beta1;
>> that would be a horrid crimp on our ability to fix bugs during beta.
> Sure, there's no promise. But I still think it's worth taking the amount
> of breakage more into account than pre beta?
Are there really so many people using the ProcessUtility hook?
In a quick look on codesearch.debian.net, I found
hypopg
pgaudit
pgextwlist
pglogical
which admittedly is more than none, but it's not a huge number
either. I have to think that fixing this bug reliably is a
more important consideration.
regards, tom lane
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-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, andres@anarazel.de, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Centralizing protective copying of utility statements
In-Reply-To: <1058642.1623963057@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