Re: Do we still need gen_node_support.pl's nodetag ABI stability check?

From: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Do we still need gen_node_support.pl's nodetag ABI stability check?
Date: 2026-04-16 14:33:23
Message-ID: 0B7ADF2E-D2D2-4B3C-BD85-2B6A44D14344@yesql.se
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On 16 Apr 2026, at 03:46, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> writes:
>> On 15 Apr 2026, at 21:30, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
>>> This might still be helpful because it checks during local builds and doesn't rely on the buildfarm.
>
>> But does it actually give a good enough answer to be relied upon when passing
>> the local check can fail the buildfarm check?
>
> Yeah, my answer to that is still "why is this particular case more
> important than any other ABI breakage you might cause while hacking
> on a back branch?". I quite agree that being able to check for ABI
> breakage locally can be useful.

Agreed.

> But what we ought to do is make it
> easier for people to use libabigail for that without spinning up a
> local buildfarm instance. Perhaps we could extract the buildfarm's
> ABICompCheck.pm script into some standalone tool.

While I have zero insights into how complicated that would be, off the cuff it
seems like the right approach.

--
Daniel Gustafsson

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2026-04-16 14:37:51 Re: Reduce build times of pg_trgm GIN indexes
Previous Message vignesh C 2026-04-16 14:12:07 Re: Use XLogRecPtrIsValid() instead of negated XLogRecPtrIsInvalid