Re: Centralizing protective copying of utility statements - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Centralizing protective copying of utility statements
Date
Msg-id 1058642.1623963057@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Centralizing protective copying of utility statements  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Centralizing protective copying of utility statements
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2021-06-17 15:53:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Uh, nobody ever promised that server-internal APIs are frozen as of beta1;
>> that would be a horrid crimp on our ability to fix bugs during beta.

> Sure, there's no promise. But I still think it's worth taking the amount
> of breakage more into account than pre beta?

Are there really so many people using the ProcessUtility hook?
In a quick look on codesearch.debian.net, I found

hypopg
pgaudit
pgextwlist
pglogical

which admittedly is more than none, but it's not a huge number
either.  I have to think that fixing this bug reliably is a
more important consideration.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Centralizing protective copying of utility statements
Next
From: Fabien COELHO
Date:
Subject: Re: pgbench logging broken by time logic changes