On 2 March 2016 at 00:03, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > True. There is an API, though, and having pluggable WAL support seems > desirable too. At the same time, I don't think we know of anyone > maintaining a non-core index AM ... and there are probably good > reasons for that. We end up revising the index AM API pretty > regularly every time somebody wants to do something new, so it's not > really a stable API that extensions can just tap into. I suspect that > a transaction manager API would end up similarly situated. > <http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers> > IMO that needs to be true of all hooks into the real innards. The ProcessUtility_hook API changed a couple of times after introduction and nobody screamed. I think we just have to mark such places as having cross-version API volatility, so you should be prepared to #if PG_VERSION_NUM around them if you use them. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
