On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Anyone else want to vote? So far I count 3-1 in favor of making this change. > > Actually, on looking at the final form of the patch, it's hard to think > that it's not just useless API churn. The one existing hook user would > have to turn around and call get_password_type() anyway, so it's not > an improvement for that use-case. What's the argument that most other > use-cases wouldn't need to do the same?
OK, make that 2-2 in favor of the change. I guess it does seem likely that most users of the hook would need to do the same, but it seems confusing to pass the same function both x and f(x), so my vote is to not do that. But I'm not disposed to spend a lot of energy arguing about it, so if other people feel differently, that's cool. I just want to reach a decision and either do this or drop it from the open items list. -- 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