Re: Do we still need gen_node_support.pl's nodetag ABI stability check?
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2026-04-15T18:13:46Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Attachments
- v1-0001-Remove-gen_node_support.pl-s-ad-hoc-ABI-stability.patch (text/x-diff) patch v1-0001
I wrote: > We're still a couple months away from cutting the REL_19_STABLE > branch, but I was contemplating that just now, and it occurred to me > to wonder whether we still need gen_node_support.pl's single-purpose > ABI check (cf commit eea9fa9b2) now that we have buildfarm animals > running general-purpose ABI stability checks. > On the one hand, there's much to be said for belt-and-suspenders-too > safety checks. On the other hand, updating gen_node_support.pl is > an extra manual step while creating a branch, so it's easy to forget > or get wrong. It's also not very clear why this particular sort > of ABI break in a stable branch is any worse than other hazards. > I'm not really set either way, but my first thought is to drop > the special mechanism. Hearing no objections, I went ahead and wrote a patch for that. Doing that reminded me that it's a really incomplete check anyway, as it only verifies that the last auto-assigned NodeTag number hasn't changed. Re-ordering earlier entries, for example, would not get detected. So even on its own terms it's little more than a stopgap; the buildfarm's libabigail checks are far more thorough. Barring objections, I'll push this soon. regards, tom lane
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