Andrew Gierth <and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk> writes:
> (b) many of the old names are significant collision risks.
What collision risks? PG does not allow loadable libraries to export
their symbols, so I don't see the problem. I recommend just keeping
those things named as they were.
> Certainly when developing this I had _SIGNIFICANT_ encouragement, some
> of it from YOU, for increasing the limit.
Yes, but that was before the interest in in-place upgrade went up.
This patch is the first place where we have to decide whether we meant
it when we said we were going to pay more attention to that.
> I'm prepared to give slightly more consideration to option #3: make
> the new code read the old format as well as the new one.
If you think you can make that work, it would solve the problem.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
