Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 11:31 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Yeah, exactly. Not only do I not feel a need to change this behavior
>> in the back branches, but the original patch is *also* an API change,
>> in that it changes the behavior of what appears to be a well-defined
>> boolean parameter. The fact that none of the call sites found in
>> core today would care doesn't change that; you'd still be risking
>> breaking extensions, and/or future back-patches.
> Extensions calling those functions with old true/false values probably
> won't get any warning or error during compile. Is is something we
> should worry about or is it enough to keep the same behavior in this
> case?
Yeah, I thought about that. We can avoid such problems by assigning
the enum values such that 0 and 1 correspond to the old behaviors.
I didn't look to see if the proposed patch does it like that right
now, but it should be an easy fix if not.
regards, tom lane
