Re: SPITupleTable members missing in docs
Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>
From: Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org,
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Date: 2019-07-12T15:59:56Z
Lists: pgsql-docs
Hello,
>> To take into account Tom's comment, I'd suggest a middle ground by
>> commenting a public and private part explicitely in the struct,
>> typedef struct {
>> /* PUBLIC members to be used by callers ... */
>> /* PRIVATE members, not intended for external usage ... */
>> } ... ;
>
> One problem is that the members we've retroactively decided are "public"
> are in the middle of the struct :-(.
Argh, I did not notice this tiny but relevant detail.
> But it occurs to me that there's no good reason we couldn't re-order the
> members, as long as we only do so on HEAD and not in released versions.
> That would make it a bit less inconsistent and easier to add labels
> such as you suggest.
Indeed. SPI-dependent extensions are likely recompiled between major
version, so a reordering should not cause significant problems.
This mean that a simple doc patch is turned into a code patch.
--
Fabien.
Commits
-
Clarify the distinction between public and private SPITupleTable fields.
- fec0778c8098 13.0 landed
-
Prevent leakage of SPI tuple tables during subtransaction abort.
- 3d13623d75d3 9.4.0 cited