Re: GinPageIs* don't actually return a boolean
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: GinPageIs* don't actually return a boolean |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoZC4K=f6NR2-X7nu69hQMMU4U5T4Rq6VSFgg9+S8n6Eag@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: GinPageIs* don't actually return a boolean (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: GinPageIs* don't actually return a boolean
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2016-02-11 08:50:41 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >> Are we thinking to back-patch this? I would be disinclined to >> back-patch widespread changes like this. If there's a specific >> instance related to Gin where this is causing a tangible problem, we >> could back-patch just that part, with a clear description of that >> problem. Otherwise, I think this should be master-only. > > I'm not sure. It's pretty darn nasty that right now we fail in some > places in the code if stdbool.h is included previously. That's probably > going to become more and more common. On the other hand it's invasive, > as you say. Partially patching things doesn't seem like a really viable > approach to me, bugs caused by this are hard to find/trigger. I have never been quite clear on what you think is going to cause stdbool.h inclusions to become more common. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: