Re: Is a UDF binary portable across different minor releases and PostgreSQL distributions? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tsunakawa, Takayuki
Subject Re: Is a UDF binary portable across different minor releases and PostgreSQL distributions?
Date
Msg-id 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1F59CA23@G01JPEXMBYT05
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Is a UDF binary portable across different minor releases and PostgreSQL distributions?  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Michael Paquier
> So perhaps the best answer, is not 1 nor 2. Just saying that the routines
> are carefully maintained with a best effort, though sometimes you may need
> to rebuild depending on unavoidable changes in routine signatures that had
> to be introduced.

Good, I'd like to use that "mild" expression in the manual.  Although the expression is mild, the reality for users is
not,is it?
 
Because the UDF developers and users cannot easily or correctly determine if rebuilding is necessary, nervous
(enterprise)users will rebuild their UDFs with each minor release for the maximum safety as Michael does.
 

Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold <
Next
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: Bug in batch tuplesort memory CLUSTER case (9.6 only)