Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hty8k-0004L3-1D for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 03 Aug 2019 17:48:22 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hty8i-0007zP-HI for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Sat, 03 Aug 2019 17:48:20 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hty8i-0007zH-4q for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Sat, 03 Aug 2019 17:48:20 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1hty8a-0001D4-L6 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Sat, 03 Aug 2019 17:48:19 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x73Hm1dc018543; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 13:48:01 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Andres Freund cc: Etsuro Fujita , Amit Langote , Thomas Munro , David Rowley , Robert Haas , Alvaro Herrera , Etsuro Fujita , PostgreSQL-development , amitdkhan.pg@gmail.com Subject: Re: partition routing layering in nodeModifyTable.c In-reply-to: <20190803173236.dz6uzqat6cscymi4@alap3.anarazel.de> References: <20190718055334.4arwrufbhe7zcsjx@alap3.anarazel.de> <20190719165241.nblajgpf5ys2q5sh@alap3.anarazel.de> <20190802180138.64zcircokw2upaho@alap3.anarazel.de> <20190802203059.btgvsmi7nk2zrtdw@alap3.anarazel.de> <20190803173236.dz6uzqat6cscymi4@alap3.anarazel.de> Comments: In-reply-to Andres Freund message dated "Sat, 03 Aug 2019 10:32:36 -0700" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <18541.1564854481.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2019 13:48:01 -0400 Message-ID: <18542.1564854481@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Andres Freund writes: > On 2019-08-03 19:41:55 +0900, Etsuro Fujita wrote: >> What API does that function break? > You need to call it, whereas previously you did not need to call it. The > effort to change an FDW to get one more parameter, or to call that > function is about the same. If those are the choices, adding a parameter is clearly the preferable solution, because it makes the API breakage obvious at compile. Adding a function would make sense, perhaps, if only a minority of FDWs need to do so. It'd still be risky if the need to do so could be missed in light testing. regards, tom lane