Horton

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

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "David E. Wheeler" <david@justatheory.com>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>, Mankirat Singh <mankiratsingh1315@gmail.com>
Date: 2025-10-17T23:07:36Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
"David E. Wheeler" <david@justatheory.com> writes:
> On Oct 17, 2025, at 17:51, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> NO.  The rule is: if there's no such file, do not apply ABI checking.
>> We are not interested in ABI complaints against master.

> It only runs against maintenance branches.

That seems overcomplicated: how does the buildfarm know
what's a maintenance branch?  I think the rule should be
just "run ABI checks if the control file exists, else not".

As an example of why that's better, what if we did decide
we wanted ABI checks on master?

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Add commit 24f6c1bd4 to v17 .abi-compliance-history.

  2. Add .abi-compliance-history to back-branches.

  3. Add reminder to create .abi-compliance-history.

  4. Update .abi-compliance-history file.

  5. Add .abi-compliance-history to v18 branch.

  6. Fix thinko in commit 7d129ba54.

  7. Fix lookups in pg_{clear,restore}_{attribute,relation}_stats().

  8. Add defenses against unexpected changes in the NodeTag enum list.