On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 10:14 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> > * Andres Freund (andres@anarazel.de) wrote:
> >> I don't think that should stop us from breaking the API. You've got to
> >> do quite low level stuff to need pglz directly, in which case such an
> >> API change should be the least of your problems between major versions.
>
> > Agreed, this is across a major version and I don't think it's an issue
> > to break the API.
>
> Yeah. We don't normally hesitate to change internal APIs across major
> versions, as long as
> (a) the breakage will be obvious when recompiling an extension, and
> (b) it will be clear how to get the same behavior as before.
>
> Adding an argument qualifies on both counts. Sometimes, if a very
> large number of call sites would be affected, it makes sense to use
> a wrapper function so that we don't have to touch so many places;
> but that doesn't apply here.
+1. I think Paul had it right originally.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
