On Fri, Dec 16, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> On 2016-12-16 11:41:49 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Thoughts?
>>
>> Hearing no objections, I've gone ahead and committed this. If that
>> makes somebody really unhappy I can revert it, but I am betting that
>> the real story is that nobody cares about preserving T_ID().
>
> I don't care about T_ID, but I do care about breaking extensions using
> lwlocks like for the 3rd release in a row or such. This is getting a
> bit ridiculous.
Hmm, I hadn't thought about that. :-)
I guess we could put back array_base/array_stride and just ignore
them, but that hardly seems better. Then we're stuck with that wart
forever.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company