Thread

Re: abi-compliance-check failure due to recent changes to pg_{clear,restore}_{attribute,relation}_stats()

David E. Wheeler <david@justatheory.com> — 2025-10-20T15:36:16Z

On Oct 20, 2025, at 16:39, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> OK, I pushed a placeholder following Nathan's formatting proposal.
> The ABI checker should still complain, because I made it point at
> REL_18_0^, which is what I expect we'd do in practice.  After we
> see it respond to that, we can move the reference point to where
> it needs to be.

Nice timing, as Mankirat also recently updated the code to determine the files to compare based on feedback from Peter E; see today’s failure[1] for an example. Looks like this:

```
Branch: REL_18_STABLE
Git HEAD: 399a9e04e5491f8a76ffb482f4a86b9acb6f91fb
Changes since: REL_18_0

Binaries compared: 
bin/postgres
lib/libecpg.so
lib/libecpg_compat.so
lib/libpgtypes.so
lib/libpq.so

log files for step abi-compliance-check:

 Leaf changes summary: 2 artifacts changed
Changed leaf types summary: 0 leaf type changed
Removed/Changed/Added functions summary: 2 Removed, 0 Changed, 0 Added function (2 filtered out)
Removed/Changed/Added variables summary: 0 Removed, 0 Changed, 0 Added variable

2 Removed functions:

  [D] 'function void stats_lock_check_privileges(Oid)'    {stats_lock_check_privileges}
  [D] 'function Oid stats_lookup_relid(const char*, const char*)'    {stats_lookup_relid}
```

Should look the same tomorrow but instead say “Changes since REL_18_0^”.

Best,

David

[1] https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_stage_log.pl?nm=baza&dt=2025-10-20%2013%3A11%3A05&stg=abi-compliance-check