On Wed, Nov 19, 2025 at 12:47 PM Bertrand Drouvot
<bertranddrouvot.pg@gmail.com> wrote:
> > True, but if they write any new code, and care about it compiling with
> > older minor releases, this is a potential pitfall.
>
> Why given that 06edbed4786 has been back patched through 13?
I do not know how to make the phrase "older minor releases" any more
clear. You and Álvaro seem to be under the impression that nobody will
ever try to compile code written after this change from a point
release that we shipped before this change. While I don't think that
will be a common thing to do, I'm not sure where you get the idea that
older minor releases completely cease to be relevant when we release a
new one. That's just not how it works.
I bet if we look in a few years we'll find modules on PGXN that have
#ifdef logic in them to make sure they can work with both
XLogRecPtrIsInvalid and XLogRecPtrIsValid. Probably most won't; a lot
of extensions don't need either macro anyway. But what do you think
that an extension maintainer is going to do if their build breaks at
some point, on master or in the back-branches? Do you think they're
just going to do a hard switch to the new macro? Because that's not
what I will do if this breaks something I have to maintain. I'll
certainly make it work both ways, somehow or other. And I bet everyone
else will do the same.
And that would be totally fine and reasonable if this were fixing an
actual problem.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
