Re: LWLockAcquire and LockBuffer mode argument - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From ilmari@ilmari.org (Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker)
Subject Re: LWLockAcquire and LockBuffer mode argument
Date
Msg-id 871rjthbnp.fsf@wibble.ilmari.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: LWLockAcquire and LockBuffer mode argument  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: LWLockAcquire and LockBuffer mode argument  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:

> Hi,
>
> On 2020-08-25 13:59:35 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> However, if we do it all in a backward-compatible way as you propose,
>> then we're likely to keep reintroducing code that does it the old way
>> for a really long time. I'm not sure that actually makes a lot of
>> sense. It might be better to just bite the bullet and make a hard
>> break.
>
> It seems easy enough to slap a compiler "enforced" deprecation warning
> on the new compat version, in master only. Seems unnecessary to make
> life immediately harder for extensions authors desiring cross-version
> compatibility.

Would it be possible to make the compat versions only available when
building extensions, but not to core code?

In Perl we do that a lot, using #ifndef PERL_CORE.

- ilmari
-- 
- Twitter seems more influential [than blogs] in the 'gets reported in
  the mainstream press' sense at least.               - Matt McLeod
- That'd be because the content of a tweet is easier to condense down
  to a mainstream media article.                      - Calle Dybedahl



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Ashutosh Sharma
Date:
Subject: Re: recovering from "found xmin ... from before relfrozenxid ..."
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: More tests with USING INDEX replident and dropped indexes