On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 8:24 PM Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 5:12 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 5:03 PM Ashutosh Bapat
> > <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 4:58 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Thanks, the patch looks good to me. I have slightly adjusted one of
> > > > the comments and ran pgindent. See attached. As mentioned in the
> > > > commit message, we shouldn't backpatch this as this requires a new
> > > > callback and moreover, users can increase the wal_sender_timeout and
> > > > wal_receiver_timeout to avoid this problem. What do you think?
> > >
> > > The callback and the implementation is all in core. What's the risk
> > > you see in backpatching it?
> > >
> >
> > Because we are changing the exposed structure and which can break
> > existing extensions using it.
>
> Is that because we are adding the new member in the middle of the
> structure?
>
Not only that but this changes the size of the structure and we want
to avoid that as well in stable branches. See email [1] (you can't
change the struct size either ...). As per my understanding, our usual
practice is to not change the exposed structure's size/definition in
stable branches.
[1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2358496.1649168259%40sss.pgh.pa.us
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.