Re: abi-compliance-check failure due to recent changes to pg_{clear,restore}_{attribute,relation}_stats()

From: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Mankirat Singh <mankiratsingh1315(at)gmail(dot)com>, nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com, pg(at)bowt(dot)ie, andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: abi-compliance-check failure due to recent changes to pg_{clear,restore}_{attribute,relation}_stats()
Date: 2025-10-18 15:47:40
Message-ID: 17DB0A6A-C967-48A8-B1C0-9A4F31C4F8EF@justatheory.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Oct 18, 2025, at 11:14, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> I am strongly against relying on suppression files. I think that
> is a very imprecise technology, and it is certainly harder to use
> than the "choose a blessed reference point" approach.

Seconded. I’m also not keen on using something specific to libabigail if, long term, we want to enable similar checks on other platforms using other tools that may not support it suppression file format.

Let’s do the baseline SHA file and see how it goes.

Best,

David

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Srinath Reddy Sadipiralla 2025-10-18 16:04:55 Re: Making pg_rewind faster
Previous Message David E. Wheeler 2025-10-18 15:46:23 Re: abi-compliance-check failure due to recent changes to pg_{clear,restore}_{attribute,relation}_stats()