Re: Do we still need gen_node_support.pl's nodetag ABI stability check?
Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
From: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>,
pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2026-04-16T14:33:23Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> On 16 Apr 2026, at 03:46, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes: >> On 15 Apr 2026, at 21:30, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote: >>> This might still be helpful because it checks during local builds and doesn't rely on the buildfarm. > >> But does it actually give a good enough answer to be relied upon when passing >> the local check can fail the buildfarm check? > > Yeah, my answer to that is still "why is this particular case more > important than any other ABI breakage you might cause while hacking > on a back branch?". I quite agree that being able to check for ABI > breakage locally can be useful. Agreed. > But what we ought to do is make it > easier for people to use libabigail for that without spinning up a > local buildfarm instance. Perhaps we could extract the buildfarm's > ABICompCheck.pm script into some standalone tool. While I have zero insights into how complicated that would be, off the cuff it seems like the right approach. -- Daniel Gustafsson
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Remove gen_node_support.pl's ad-hoc ABI stability check.
- 1cd3cd372ae4 19 (unreleased) landed
-
Add defenses against unexpected changes in the NodeTag enum list.
- eea9fa9b250f 16.0 cited