On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:17 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Renaming it would constitute an API break, which is if anything worse
> than an ABI break.
I don't think so, because an API break will cause a compilation
failure, which an extension author can easily fix.
> While we're complaining at you, let me point out that changing a field's
> content and semantics while not changing its name is a time bomb waiting
> to break any third-party code that looks at (or modifies...) the field.
>
> What I think you need to do is:
>
> 1. In the back branches, revert delayChkpt to its previous type and
> semantics. Squeeze a separate delayChkptEnd bool in somewhere
> (you can't change the struct size either ...).
>
> 2. In HEAD, rename the field to something like delayChkptFlags,
> to ensure that any code touching it has to be inspected and updated.
Well, we can do it that way, I suppose.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
