On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 10:14 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> writes: > > * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote: > >> I don't think that should stop us from breaking the API. You've got to > >> do quite low level stuff to need pglz directly, in which case such an > >> API change should be the least of your problems between major versions. > > > Agreed, this is across a major version and I don't think it's an issue > > to break the API. > > Yeah. We don't normally hesitate to change internal APIs across major > versions, as long as > (a) the breakage will be obvious when recompiling an extension, and > (b) it will be clear how to get the same behavior as before. > > Adding an argument qualifies on both counts. Sometimes, if a very > large number of call sites would be affected, it makes sense to use > a wrapper function so that we don't have to touch so many places; > but that doesn't apply here.
+1. I think Paul had it right originally. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
