<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 12:59 AM, Andres Freund <span
dir="ltr"><<ahref="mailto:andres@anarazel.de" target="_blank">andres@anarazel.de</a>></span> wrote:<br
/><blockquoteclass="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span
class="">On2015-06-07 13:44:08 -0700, Jeff Janes wrote:<br /></span><span class="">> I'd like to advocate for
back-patchingthis to 9.0, 9.1, and 9.2. It has<br /> > run without problems for a while now, and it can be
considereda bug that<br /> > systems with a very large number of objects cannot be upgraded in a<br /> >
reasonabletime.<br /><br /></span>In that case, how about working on a version for <= 9.2 (single one<br /> should
suffice)?This will likely include a bunch of wrapper functions<br /> to avoid changing the API in the back branches.<br
/><br/> Greetings,<br /><br /> Andres Freund<br /></blockquote></div><br /></div><div class="gmail_extra">Unfortunately
Idon't know what that means about the API. Does it mean that none of the functions declared in any .h file can have
theirsignatures changed? But new functions can be added?</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br /></div><div
class="gmail_extra">Thanks,</div><divclass="gmail_extra"><br /></div><div class="gmail_extra">Jeff</div><div
class="gmail_extra"><br/></div></div>
