* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > Hm, sorry for missing this earlier. I think CatalogUpdateIndexes() is
> > fairly widely used in extensions - it seems like a pretty harsh change
> > to not leave some backward compatibility layer in place.
>
> If an extension is doing that, it is probably constructing tuples to put
> into the catalog, which means it'd be equally (and much more quietly)
> broken by any change to the catalog's schema. We've never considered
> such an argument as a reason not to change catalog schemas, though.
>
> In short, I've got mighty little sympathy for that argument.
+1
> (I'm a little more concerned by Alvaro's apparent position that WARM
> is a done deal; I didn't think so. This particular change seems like
> good cleanup anyhow, however.)
Agreed.
Thanks!
Stephen
