Re: GetRelationPath() vs critical sections - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: GetRelationPath() vs critical sections
Date
Msg-id 2787782.1740078676@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: GetRelationPath() vs critical sections  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: GetRelationPath() vs critical sections
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> Does anybody have opinions about whether we should keep a backward compatible
> interface in place or not?

I vote for "not" --- doesn't seem like there'll be much external
code affected, and we make comparably-sized API breaks all the time.

As a matter of style, I wonder if it'd be better to have these
functions write into a caller-supplied variable.  That seems more
in keeping with most other places in Postgres, and it would save
a copying step in cases where the caller needs the result on the
heap.  I realize that returning structs has been in C for decades,
but that doesn't mean I want some of our APIs doing it one way and
some the other.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: GetRelationPath() vs critical sections
Next
From: Sergey Belyashov
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #18815: Logical replication worker Segmentation fault