Horton

Re: abi-compliance-check failure due to recent changes to pg_{clear,restore}_{attribute,relation}_stats()

Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, david@justatheory.com, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Date: 2025-10-17T19:33:28Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 3:28 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was imagining this working more like what Tom suggested.  IOW we'd use
> the latest commit listed in the file (perhaps always the first one) as the
> baseline.

You said "I suppose this idea is entirely dependent on the maintainers
of the abi-compliance-check code to adapt to it", which I understood
to mean that you thought that the upstream tool would somehow be made
to accept these kinds of ignore files. Obviously I misunderstood.

> Of course, this doesn't work too well if we have a bunch of ABI
> breaks between buildfarm checks.  But my guess is that we could deal with
> that pretty easily (e.g., make sure the buildfarm member in question runs
> for every commit on the stable branch).

In practice I think that it would be up to the person writing the next
suppression to verify that there were no unrelated changes in the
interim between their new blessed/suppression commit and the prior
one. That doesn't seem super onerous to me, given that even false
positives don't seem to be all that common with
abi-compliance-checker.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan

Commits

  1. Add commit 24f6c1bd4 to v17 .abi-compliance-history.

  2. Add .abi-compliance-history to back-branches.

  3. Add reminder to create .abi-compliance-history.

  4. Update .abi-compliance-history file.

  5. Add .abi-compliance-history to v18 branch.

  6. Fix thinko in commit 7d129ba54.

  7. Fix lookups in pg_{clear,restore}_{attribute,relation}_stats().

  8. Add defenses against unexpected changes in the NodeTag enum list.