Re: Potential ABI breakage in upcoming minor releases
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com>
Cc: "David E. Wheeler" <david@justatheory.com>,
Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>,
Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com>,
pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
Marco Slot <marco.slot@gmail.com>,
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>,
Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>
Date: 2024-11-26T18:17:29Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Undo unintentional ABI break in struct ResultRelInfo.
- ee33d58471de 16.6 landed
- 6bfacd368bb4 17.2 landed
- 17db248f318f 15.10 landed
- 099e711b77b8 14.15 landed
-
For inplace update durability, make heap_update() callers wait.
- 51ff46de29f6 16.5 cited
-
Fix btmarkpos/btrestrpos array key wraparound bug.
- 3fa81b62e09b 16.1 cited
-
Fix calculation of which GENERATED columns need to be updated.
- 8cd190e13a22 14.7 cited
Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 08:56:50PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: >> ... (But consider both 32-bit and 64-bit cases when >> deciding what is "padding".) > What about providing a decision table to help considering for 32-bit, something > like (proposed in [1])? > 64-bit hole size | use on 32-bit? > -----------------|--------------- > <=3 bytes | safe to use > 4 bytes | don't use > 5-7 bytes | use first (hole_size - 4) bytes only Mumble ... that seems too simplistic to me. Admittedly, I can't offhand think of an inter-platform variation that would move field offsets by something other than a multiple of 4 bytes, so maybe it's correct. In any case, I think the purpose of these notes is just to remind people of issues to think about, not to provide complete solution recipes, so I'd rather not go into that much detail. regards, tom lane