From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Temporary tables prevent autovacuum, leading to XID wraparound |
Date: | 2018-08-08 14:40:02 |
Message-ID: | 20180808144002.usbjhg3qzwfxx3w7@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-Aug-08, Michael Paquier wrote:
> As this introduces a new
> field to PGPROC, so back-patching the thing as-is would cause an ABI
> breakage. Are folks here fine with the new field added to the bottom of
> the structure for the backpatched versions, including v11? I have found
> about commit 13752743 which has also added a new field called
> isBackgroundWorker in the middle of PGPROC in a released branch, which
> looks to me like an ABI breakage...
Unnoticed ABI breaks make my hair stand on end.
I suppose if we didn't know about 13752743 earlier, then not much
outside code relies on PGPROC, or at least its members after
isBackgroundWorker. I wouldn't move it now (I suppose anyone who cared
has already adjusted for it), but please do put your new member at the
end in backbranches.
I'm unsure about pg11 -- is it a backbranch already or not? Since we've
released beta3 already, ISTM we should consider it so.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-08-08 14:47:04 | Re: Facility for detecting insecure object naming |
Previous Message | Isaac Morland | 2018-08-08 14:18:32 | Re: Facility for detecting insecure object naming |