Re: Proposal: Document ABI Compatibility - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Laurenz Albe
Subject Re: Proposal: Document ABI Compatibility
Date
Msg-id 791429685cc1776e1922f295be96ac906ef79291.camel@cybertec.at
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposal: Document ABI Compatibility  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Proposal: Document ABI Compatibility
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, 2024-06-03 at 15:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > On 2024-06-03 14:43:17 -0400, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> > > * The ABI is guaranteed to change only in backward compatible ways in minor
> > > releases. If for some reason it doesn’t it’s a bug that will need to be
> > > fixed.
>
> > Thus I am not really on board with this statement as-is.
>
> Me either.  There are degrees of ABI compatibility, and we'll choose
> the least invasive way, but it's seldom the case that no conceivable
> extension will be broken.

oracle_fdw has been broken by minor releases several times in the past.
This may well be because of weird things that I am doing; still, my
experience is that minor releases are not always binary compatible.

> > It'd be interesting to see a few examples of actual minor-version-upgrade
> > extension breakages, so we can judge what caused them.
>
> Yes, that could be a fruitful discussion.

Digging through my commits brought up 6214e2b2280462cbc3aa1986e350e167651b3905,
for one.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: In-placre persistance change of a relation
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Unexpected results from CALL and AUTOCOMMIT=off