On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 10:37 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2015-05-10 21:53:45 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> Please name EVEN ONE instance in which core development has been >> prevented for fear of changing a function API. > > Even *moving* function declarations to a different file has been laudly > and repeatedly complained about...
Moving declarations is a lot more likely to break compiles than adding declarations. But even the 9.3 header file reorganizations, which broke enough compiles to be annoying, were only annoying, not a serious problem for anyone. I doubted whether that stuff was worth changing, but that's just because I don't really get excited about partial recompiles. > And there's definitely some things > around that pretty much only still exist because changing them would > break too much stuff. Such as what? > But. > > I don't think that's a reason to not expose more functions > externally. Because the usual consequence of not exposing them is that > either ugly workarounds will be found, or code will just copy pasted > around. That's not in any way better, and much likely to be worse. Yes. > I'm not saying that we shouldn't use judgement, but I do think that the > current approach ridicules our vaunted extensibility in many cases. Double yes. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
