Re: API stability [was: pgsql: Fix possible recovery trouble if TRUNCATE overlaps a checkpoint.] - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: API stability [was: pgsql: Fix possible recovery trouble if TRUNCATE overlaps a checkpoint.]
Date
Msg-id 2661153.1649186180@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: API stability [was: pgsql: Fix possible recovery trouble if TRUNCATE overlaps a checkpoint.]  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: API stability [was: pgsql: Fix possible recovery trouble if TRUNCATE overlaps a checkpoint.]  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:32 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> My point is that we want that to happen in HEAD, but it's not okay
>> for it to happen in a minor release of a stable branch.

> I understand, but I am not sure that I agree. I think that if an
> extension stops compiling against a back-branch, someone will notice
> the next time they try to compile it and will fix it. Maybe that's not
> amazing, but I don't think it's a huge deal either.

Well, perhaps it's not the end of the world, but it's still a large
PITA for the maintainer of such an extension.  They can't "just fix it"
because some percentage of their userbase will still need to compile
against older minor releases.  Nor have you provided any way to handle
that requirement via conditional compilation.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Imseih (AWS), Sami"
Date:
Subject: Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Mark all GUC variable as PGDLLIMPORT