Re: Vote needed: revert beta2 changes or not?

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk> writes:
>>>> Also they
>>>> don't need to modify
>>>> scripts, can't they just write thier own pg_cacnel_backend to
>>>> return int
>>>> based on the boolean version?
>>
>>> No, because you can't overload based purely on return type. I suppose
>>> they could write it to take an int8 pid or something, but that's a hack.
>>
>> Well, how many people want to vote for Andreas' suggestion of having
>> both
>>
>>     int pg_cancel_backend(int)
>>     bool pg_backend_cancel(int)
>>
>> with the former deprecated but still there for backward compatibility?
>
> -1, too confusing.  We have always been willing to modify API's,
> especially for admin stuff, as we add features.  If we keep everything
> around, we end up like Oracle.  That has VARCHAR2 written all over it. :-)

Actually, my only argument *against* the change was that it was during a 
period where such changes were not supposed to happen ... so I vote in 
favor of reverting (as Tom suggests above) and then removing 
pg_cancel_backend altogether for 8.2 ...

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664