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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Mankirat Singh <mankiratsingh1315(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: abi-compliance-check failure due to recent changes to pg_{clear,restore}_{attribute,relation}_stats()
Date: 2025-10-17 23:07:36
Message-ID: 1851362.1760742456@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"David E. Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com> writes:
> On Oct 17, 2025, at 17:51, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> NO. The rule is: if there's no such file, do not apply ABI checking.
>> We are not interested in ABI complaints against master.

> It only runs against maintenance branches.

That seems overcomplicated: how does the buildfarm know
what's a maintenance branch? I think the rule should be
just "run ABI checks if the control file exists, else not".

As an example of why that's better, what if we did decide
we wanted ABI checks on master?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Jones 2025-10-17 23:44:52 Re: [PATCH] Add pg_get_trigger_ddl() to retrieve the CREATE TRIGGER statement
Previous Message David E. Wheeler 2025-10-17 22:51:32 Re: abi-compliance-check failure due to recent changes to pg_{clear,restore}_{attribute,relation}_stats()