Horton

Re: Potential ABI breakage in upcoming minor releases

Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>

View thread
From: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: 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: 2024-11-15T22:27:49Z
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 →

  1. Undo unintentional ABI break in struct ResultRelInfo.

  2. For inplace update durability, make heap_update() callers wait.

  3. Fix btmarkpos/btrestrpos array key wraparound bug.

  4. Fix calculation of which GENERATED columns need to be updated.

On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 03:29:21PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> writes:
> > On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 10:09:54AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I'm starting to lean to the opinion that we need a re-wrap.
> 
> > Perhaps.  Even if we do rewrap for some reason, it's not a given that
> > restoring the old struct size is net beneficial.  If we restore the old struct
> > size in v16.6, those who rebuild for v16.5 would need to rebuild again.
> 
> I think what we should say is "sorry, 16.5 is broken for use with
> these extensions, use another minor version".  If we don't undo the
> struct size change then 16.5 is effectively a major version update for
> affected extensions: they cannot build a binary release that works
> with both older and newer minor releases.  That's a packaging
> disaster, especially if it impacts more than timescale.  The more
> so if more than one release branch is affected.

Currently, we have Christoph Berg writing "I'd say the ship has sailed, a new
release would now break things the other way round." and you writing in favor
of undoing.  It think it boils down to whether you want N people to recompile
twice or M>N people to recompile once, where we don't know N or M except that
M > N.  Fortunately, the N are probably fairly well represented in this
thread.  So to all: please speak up by 2024-11-16T17:00+0000 if you think it's
the wrong choice to bring back the v16.4 ABI and tell people to rebuild
extensions built against v16.5 (likewise for corresponding versions of
v14-v17).  Currently, the plan of record is to do that.