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

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Proposal: Document ABI Compatibility
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmobzPcvRCu0=DULVt8RxcisGs41wi5oed3jFHuJYhWR3RA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Proposal: Document ABI Compatibility  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Proposal: Document ABI Compatibility
Re: Proposal: Document ABI Compatibility
List pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 3:39 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Me either.  There are degrees of ABI compatibility

Exactly this!

What I think would be useful to document is our usual practices e.g.
adding new struct members at the end of structs, trying to avoid
changing public function signatures. If we document promises to
extension authors, I don't know how much difference that will make:
we'll probably end up needing to violate them at some point for one
reason or another. But if we document what committers should do, then
we might do better than we're now, because committers will be more
likely to do it right, and extension authors can also read those
instructions to understand what our practices are.

--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Nathan Bossart
Date:
Subject: Re: use CREATE DATABASE STRATEGY = FILE_COPY in pg_upgrade
Next
From: walther@technowledgy.de
Date:
Subject: Re: RFC: adding pytest as a supported test framework