Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 3:27 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Alexander Pyhalov <a.pyhalov@postgrespro.ru> writes:
>>> I was a bit surprised, the patch hasn't landed to master. But flag
>>> somehow slipped in (but only as no-op). The attached patch removes
>>> useless flag.
>> Right, done.
> Ugh... I wonder how this happened, and whether this is the only
> instance of private code sneaking into the PostgreSQL codebase. I'm
> also kind of concerned about the legal risk if this comes from a
> project with a strict license.
Unless there's more here than the one single symbol name, I'm not
worried about legal risk --- it's hard to claim copyright or patent
interests in that much. In any case, it's hard to see postgrespro.ru
suing the rest of us over their own mistake.
> Should we also remove this code from v18?
I thought about it but desisted. There's some epsilon-level risk
that somebody already copied the pull_var_clause call with
PVC_INCLUDE_PLACEHOLDERS into their extension. If so, their code
isn't broken today but would be if we back-patched. Tiny as that
risk is, the benefit of removing the symbol from v18 isn't larger.
Also, while I believe our newly-minted libabigail ABI-checking
infrastructure isn't smart enough to complain about removal of a
macro symbol, it's possible that downstream packaging systems
would notice that and flag it as an inappropriate API change.
Again, the bureaucracy involved in dealing with such a complaint
seems to outweigh the benefit.
regards, tom lane
