Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-04-19 12:03:22 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > Since this change to BufferGetPage() has caused severe back-patch > > > pain for at least two committers so far, I will revert that (very > > > recent) change to this patch later today unless I hear an > > > objections. > > > > I vote for back-patching a no-op change instead, as discussed elsewhere. > > What about Tom's argument that that'd be problematic for external code? Kevin offered to code it in a way that maintains ABI and API compatibility with some trickery. Robert Haas wrote: > That wouldn't have fixed my problem, which involved rebasing a patch. True. I note that it's possible to munge a patch mechanically to sort out this situation. > I really think it's also a bad precedent to back-patch things into > older branches that are not themselves bug fixes. Users count on us > not to destabilize older branches, and that means being minimalist > about what we put into them. Well, this wouldn't change the inner working of the code at all, only how it looks, so it wouldn't affect users. I grant that it would affect developers of forks. -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, 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
