On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 10:22:53PM +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Robert Haas
> > My theory is that they'll be even less impressed if they try to use a
> > supposedly-compatible library and it breaks a bunch of stuff, but I
> > wonder what Christoph Berg (cc'd) thinks.
>
> It would also hinder adoption of PG in more places. There are
> currently thousands of software products that link to libpq in some
> form, and it would take several years to have them all fixed if
> ABI/API compatibility were broken. Chasing the long tail there is
> hard; we get to witness that every year with upstreams that aren't
> compatible with PG18 yet. For some extensions, I'm still waiting to
> get my PG17 (or PG16!) patches merged.
The fact is is called libpq --- Post-QUEL, and not libpg, supports your
analysis. ;-)
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
Do not let urgent matters crowd out time for investment in the future.
