On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 08:13:45AM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >> On 26 Sep 2023, at 00:20, Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 11:18:00AM +0900, bt23nguyent wrote: >>> -basic_archive_configured(ArchiveModuleState *state) >>> +basic_archive_configured(ArchiveModuleState *state, char **logdetail) >> >> Could we do something more like GUC_check_errdetail() instead to maintain >> backward compatibility with v16? > > We'd still need something exported to call into which isn't in 16, so it > wouldn't be more than optically backwards compatible since a module written > for > 17 won't compile for 16, or am I missing something?
I only mean that a module written for v16 could continue to be used in v17 without any changes. You are right that a module that uses this new functionality wouldn't compile for v16. But IMHO the interface is nicer, too, since module authors wouldn't need to worry about allocating the space for the string or formatting the message. -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
