Re: Potential ABI breakage in upcoming minor releases
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
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: 2024-11-15T20:29:21Z
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
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. > Either way, users of timescaledb should rebuild timescaledb for every future > PostgreSQL minor release. We really don't want that either. I recall that somebody (Peter E?) had been looking into tools for automatically checking ABI compatibility in stable branches. My takeaway from this mess is that we need to move the priority of that project way up. regards, tom lane