On 2014-05-05 23:20:43 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > I'm not confident that it'll be useful either. But I am confident that > > if we don't put it in now, and decide we want it later, there will be > > complaints when we change the API. Better to have an ignored parameter > > than no parameter. > > I'm generally skeptical of that philosophy. If we put in an ignored > parameter, people may pass pointers to NULL or to garbage or to an > overly-long string, and they won't know it's broken until we make it > do something; at which point their code will begin to fail without > warning.
If it were a complex change, maybe. But I don't think that's likely here. Assert(name != NULL && strlen(name) > 0 && strlen(name) < NAMEDATALEN); should perfectly do the trick. > If we're going to do anything at all here for 9.4, I recommend > ignoring the fact we're in feature freeze and going whole hog: add the > name, add the monitoring view, and add the monitoring view for the > main shared memory segment just for good measure. We can do that as well. If there's agreement on that path I'll update the patch to also show dynamic statements. > Anyone who expects PostgreSQL's C API to be > completely stable is going to be regularly disappointed, as most > recently demonstrated by the Enormous Header Churn of the 9.3 era. I > don't particularly mind being the cause of further disappointment; as > long as the breakage is obvious rather than subtle, the fix usually > takes about 10 minutes. Didn't you complain rather loudly about that change? Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers