| From: | "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Is a UDF binary portable across different minor releases and PostgreSQL distributions? |
| Date: | 2016-07-01 04:00:53 |
| Message-ID: | 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1F59CA23@G01JPEXMBYT05 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Michael Paquier
> So perhaps the best answer, is not 1 nor 2. Just saying that the routines
> are carefully maintained with a best effort, though sometimes you may need
> to rebuild depending on unavoidable changes in routine signatures that had
> to be introduced.
Good, I'd like to use that "mild" expression in the manual. Although the expression is mild, the reality for users is not, is it?
Because the UDF developers and users cannot easily or correctly determine if rebuilding is necessary, nervous (enterprise) users will rebuild their UDFs with each minor release for the maximum safety as Michael does.
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2016-07-01 04:06:08 | Re: Bug in batch tuplesort memory CLUSTER case (9.6 only) |
| Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2016-07-01 03:51:18 | Re: pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold < |