On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 03:15:41PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> I think the one possible argument against this approach might be that it
>> adds a field to the struct, so if you have an extension using a Slab
>> context, it'll break if you don't rebuild it. But that only matters if
>> we want to backpatch it (which I think is not the plan) and with memory
>> context checking enabled (which does not apply to regular packages).
>
>Huh? That struct is private in slab.c, no? Any outside code relying
>on its contents deserves to break.
>
Ah, right. Silly me.
>I do think we ought to back-patch this, given the horrible results
>Andres showed.
>
OK.
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
