Re: automatically generating node support functions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: automatically generating node support functions
Date: 2022-07-11 21:18:57
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>> Additionally, I think we've had to add tags to the enum in minor releases
>> before and I'm afraid this now would end up looking even more awkward?

> Peter and I already had a discussion about that upthread --- we figured
> that if there's a way to manually assign a nodetag's number, you could use
> that option when you have to add a tag in a stable branch. We didn't
> actually build out that idea, but I can go do that, if we can solve the
> more fundamental problem of keeping the autogenerated numbers stable.

> One issue with that idea, of course, is that you have to remember to do
> it like that when back-patching a node addition. Ideally there'd be
> something that'd carp if the last autogenerated tag moves in a stable
> branch, but I'm not very sure where to put that.

One way to do it is to provide logic in to check
that, and activate that logic only in back branches. If we make that
part of the branch-making procedure, we'd not forget to do it.

Proposed patch attached.

regards, tom lane

Attachment Content-Type Size
add-ABI-stability-provisions-for-nodetag-list.patch text/x-diff 3.8 KB

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nathan Bossart 2022-07-11 21:23:54 Re: Avoid erroring out when unable to remove or parse logical rewrite files to save checkpoint work
Previous Message Greg Stark 2022-07-11 20:58:25 Re: Weird behaviour with binary copy, arrays and column count