On Wed, Jun 23, 2021 at 8:21 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@enterprisedb.com> writes: > > While rebasing a patch broken by 4daa140a2f5, I noticed that the patch > > does this: > > > @@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ enum ReorderBufferChangeType > > REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_INTERNAL_TUPLECID, > > REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_INTERNAL_SPEC_INSERT, > > REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_INTERNAL_SPEC_CONFIRM, > > + REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_INTERNAL_SPEC_ABORT, > > REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_TRUNCATE > > }; > > > Isn't that an undesirable ABI break for extensions? > > I think it's OK in HEAD. I agree we shouldn't do it like that > in the back branches. >
Okay, I'll change this in back branches and HEAD to keep the code consistent, or do you think it is better to retain the order in HEAD as it is and just change it for back-branches? -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
