On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 11:08 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 10:04 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> >> I think it's okay to add a new value of ScanOption; what you can't
> >> do is change the codes assigned to the existing values. So I'd
> >> just revert those code changes and give SO_TYPE_TIDSCAN a value
> >> that's out-of-order.
>
> > So you are thinking to apply something like the attached to
> > both master and v12? That sounds better to me.
>
> No, you can leave HEAD alone --- renumbering the enum values in
> master is fine, since we force extensions to recompile against
> new major versions. We just need to hold the values steady in
> released branches.
Yeah, you're right.
> Personally I'd keep SO_TYPE_TIDSCAN physically adjacent to the other
> SO_TYPE_xxxSCAN entries in the list, but of course that's just cosmetic.
+1. So I will apply the latest patch (adding SO_TYPE_TIDSCAN just after
SO_TYPE_ANALYZE) only to v12.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
