Re: Question and suggestion about application binary compatibility policy - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Question and suggestion about application binary compatibility policy
Date
Msg-id 20160623132645.GD21246@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Question and suggestion about application binary compatibility policy  ("Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 06:42:57AM +0000, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> > From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:bruce@momjian.us]
> > We have this text in src/tools/RELEASE_CHANGES:
> > ...
> > This is saying running against a mismatched minor version should be fine
> > for a binary.
> 
> Thanks for a good rationale.
> 
> 
> > I know this thread is old but it bounced around a lot of ideas.  I think
> > there are some open questions:
> > 
> > *  Will a new application link against an older minor-version libpq?
> > *  Will an old application link against a newer minor-version libpq?
> 
> The former does not always hold true, if the application uses a new libpq function which is not in an old
miner-version. But I think the backward-compatibility is enough.
 

Yes, I think that is correct, and I think that is covered in the file
posted:
Adding a new function should NOT force an increase in the major versionnumber.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. +
+                     Ancient Roman grave inscription +



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "hari.prasath"
Date:
Subject: Extract Jsonb key and values
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Bug in to_timestamp().