Horton

Re: Potential ABI breakage in upcoming minor releases

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

View thread
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: 2024-11-15T22:37:01Z
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.

Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> writes:
> 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.

Well, no, what I propose is for some number of people to not recompile
extensions at all.  Only the sort of early adopters who install a new
PG release on day one will have run into this, so I anticipate that
that number will be much larger than the number who have already done
a rebuild.

			regards, tom lane