Re: GetRelationPath() vs critical sections
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213@163.com>,
pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>,
Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
Date: 2025-02-20T19:11:16Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes: > Does anybody have opinions about whether we should keep a backward compatible > interface in place or not? I vote for "not" --- doesn't seem like there'll be much external code affected, and we make comparably-sized API breaks all the time. As a matter of style, I wonder if it'd be better to have these functions write into a caller-supplied variable. That seems more in keeping with most other places in Postgres, and it would save a copying step in cases where the caller needs the result on the heap. I realize that returning structs has been in C for decades, but that doesn't mean I want some of our APIs doing it one way and some the other. regards, tom lane
Commits
-
Change _mdfd_segpath() to return paths by value
- ecbff4378bee 18.0 landed
-
Change relpath() et al to return path by value
- 37c87e63f9e1 18.0 landed