Hi,
On 2021-06-17 13:03:29 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Here's a v2 that does it like that. In this formulation, we're
> basically hoisting the responsibility for doing copyObject up into
> ProcessUtility from its direct children, which seems like a clearer
> way of thinking about what has to change.
>
> We could avoid the side-effects on users of ProcessUtility_hook by
> doing the copy step in ProcessUtility itself rather than passing the
> flag on to standard_ProcessUtility. But that sounded like a bit of a
> kluge. Also, putting the work in standard_ProcessUtility preserves
> the option to redistribute it into the individual switch arms, in case
> anyone does find the extra copying overhead annoying for statement
> types that don't need it. (I don't plan to do any such thing as part
> of this bug-fix patch, though.)
>
> Barring objections, I'm going to push this into HEAD fairly soon,
> since beta2 is hard upon us. Still thinking about which way to
> fix it in the back branches.
Phew. Do we really want to break a quite significant number of
extensions this long after feature freeze? Since we already need to find
a backpatchable way to deal with the issue it seems like deferring the
API change to 15 might be prudent?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
