On 2026-02-06 Fr 3:29 AM, Thomas Munro wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 8:19 PM Jakub Wartak
> <jakub.wartak@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 6:12 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 11:04 PM Jakub Wartak
>>> <jakub.wartak@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I'm proposing to back-patch 0001. 0002 and 0003 are proposals for master only.
>>>> Do you have any plans to commit this before February (before next
>>>> minor release) or perhaps do you need some further input or help in
>>>> this $thread? (I'm mainly after the XFS thingy, but we kill two birds
>>>> with 1 stone here).
>>> Pushed.
>> Thank You very much !
> BTW the rest of the patches will reemerge for master, but for the
> minimal one back-patched: crake complains about an ABI break due to
> GUC table changes. Of course adding a GUC to the stable branches is
> unusual and we discussed the need for it in this case. Is that
> expected? In what way is it part of the ABI? How would one determine
> in advance that the ABI checker will complain?
>
>
First, thanks for committing this.
How to tell it will detect a break is a good question. I guess a trivial
answer would be to run the buildfarm client with the ABICompCheck module
enabled, but that's probably a big ask if you're not set up for it. This
one is relatively hard to catch because tthe ABI change is in a
generated file, so the triggering source change isn't even in the
include directory.
Not sure if we want to start using a suppressions file to exclude
certain symbols from consideration. They are described here
https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man7/libabigail.7.html
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
