Re: dfmgr additional ABI version fields - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: dfmgr additional ABI version fields
Date
Msg-id 45ED8985-0756-4FE3-B651-0EC431CF1445@anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: dfmgr additional ABI version fields  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: dfmgr additional ABI version fields  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On October 7, 2021 8:49:57 AM PDT, Tom Lane
>I'm also kind of unclear on why we need to do anything about this
>in the community version.  If someone has forked PG and changed
>APIs to the extent that extensions are unlikely to work, there's
>not much stopping them from also making the two-line change
>to fmgr.h that would be needed to guarantee that different magic
>struct contents are needed.

I can see two reasons. First, it'd probably allow stock pg to generate a better error message when confronted with such
amodule. Second, there's some value in signaling forks that they should change (or think about changing), that field. 

Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: storing an explicit nonce
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: storing an explicit nonce