On 2018-May-15, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 04:27:48PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > I think we're better off adding a new function and avoid changing the
> > signature of GetForeignServer et al. Or maybe rename the function and
> > keep the original name as a compatibility wrapper macro.
>
> On the other hand, if we make the change visible because of a
> compilation failures, then modules would become aware of the problem and
> react?
Presumably, if you invoke a FDW and its handler finds
that the ForeignServer doesn't exist, what is it to do other than raise
an error? I can't see that there's any possible improvement.
So, I don't know -- if the reaction is to add a #ifdef for pg version
that adds a second argument passed always false, then we haven't won
anything.
> I would not expect modules to set missing_ok to true anyway as they
> expect those objects to exist, so I can live with a new function.
Exactly.
> What about naming those GetForeignServerExtended and
> GetForeignDataWrapperExtended?
WFM.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
