Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Either one of those approaches would cripple our freedom to change those >> data structures; which we've done repeatedly in the past and will surely >> want to do again. So I'm pretty much -1 on exposing them.
> We could instead add a view of this information to core -- > pg_stat_autovacuum, or whatever. > But to be honest, I'm more in favor of Guillaume's proposal. I will > repeat my recent assertion that we -- you in particular -- are too > reluctant to expose internal data structures to authors of C > extensions, and that this is developer-hostile. Well, the core question there is whether we have a policy of not breaking extension-visible APIs. While we will very often do things like adding parameters to existing functions, I think we've tended to refrain from making wholesale semantic revisions to exposed data structures. I'd be all right with putting the data structure declarations in a file named something like autovacuum_private.h, especially if it carried an annotation that "if you depend on this, don't be surprised if we break your code in future". 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