Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> TBH I'd like to revert all of that anyway; it seemed to me to be
>> basically gratuitous breakage of an API used by plugins. I've not
>> had time to look at whether there was an actual reason for it and
>> if so how we might solve that differently.
> Oops. I just pushed a fix for the situation as it stands, but it's
> only 2 lines, so it shouldn't be too much trouble to revert it if we
> decide on a different approach. I do agree it would be nice not to
> need to change the API there.
If we don't revert then what you pushed is clearly necessary, so
no objection to having done that. I'll look at the larger situation
as soon as I get a chance.
regards, tom lane
