>> Fix committed/pushed from master to 9.2. 9.1 declares it as a static >> function. > > Er, is that a good idea to back-patch that? Normally routine specs are > maintained stable on back-branches, and this is just a cosmetic > change.
I'm not sure if it's a cosmetic change or not. I thought declaring to-be-static function as extern is against our coding standard. Moreover, if someone wants to change near the place in the source code in the future, changes made to head may not be easily back patched or cherry-picked to older branches if I do not back patch it. Best regards, -- Tatsuo Ishii SRA OSS, Inc. Japan English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
