On 12/23/24 17:26, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> On Dec 23, 2024, at 15:17, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> How would that work for extensions where the C code is intentionally
>> supporting multiple versions of the SQL objects?
>
> I guess some people do that, eh? In that case it wouldn’t.
A function pointer rather than a version constant?
Or a function pointer, to be used if the version constant is null?
Regards,
-Chap
