On 11.06.26 20:57, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> writes:
>> On 11.06.26 14:56, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> We've discussed that before, and held off because we weren't entirely
>>> sure if anyone would complain that it is an API/ABI break. I think
>>> it's quite likely that the libabigail buildfarm machines will say
>>> it is, but is there any actual consequence?
>
>> I don't think we are tracking ABI compatibility in unreleased branches?
>
> True, it shouldn't really matter given we force people to recompile
> extensions for new major versions. SPI is an interface we expect
> to hold stable across versions, but I can't see a reason that this
> change would force extension source-code changes.
>
>>> Also, if we are going to use const in SPI, there are more parameters
>>> besides the datatype OIDs that could stand to be const-ified, eg
>>> the various Datum/isnull arrays.
>
>> Those were already done, except that there were two curious stragglers,
>> which I've added another patch to fix.
>
> OK, no further concerns.
It turned out that the second issue (the curious stragglers) were the
result of an earlier PG19 commit. So I have fixed that with a
backpatch. The argtypes one I have now committed to master.
