Re: Temporary tables prevent autovacuum, leading to XID wraparound

On 2018-Aug-08, Michael Paquier wrote:

> As this introduces a new
> field to PGPROC, so back-patching the thing as-is would cause an ABI
> breakage.  Are folks here fine with the new field added to the bottom of
> the structure for the backpatched versions, including v11?  I have found
> about commit 13752743 which has also added a new field called
> isBackgroundWorker in the middle of PGPROC in a released branch, which
> looks to me like an ABI breakage...

Unnoticed ABI breaks make my hair stand on end. 

I suppose if we didn't know about 13752743 earlier, then not much
outside code relies on PGPROC, or at least its members after
isBackgroundWorker.  I wouldn't move it now (I suppose anyone who cared
has already adjusted for it), but please do put your new member at the
end in backbranches.

I'm unsure about pg11 -- is it a backbranch already or not?  Since we've
released beta3 already, ISTM we should consider it so.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services