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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Do we still need gen_node_support.pl's nodetag ABI stability check?
Date: 2026-04-15 18:13:46
Message-ID: 2095866.1776276826@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> We're still a couple months away from cutting the REL_19_STABLE
> branch, but I was contemplating that just now, and it occurred to me
> to wonder whether we still need gen_node_support.pl's single-purpose
> ABI check (cf commit eea9fa9b2) now that we have buildfarm animals
> running general-purpose ABI stability checks.

> On the one hand, there's much to be said for belt-and-suspenders-too
> safety checks. On the other hand, updating gen_node_support.pl is
> an extra manual step while creating a branch, so it's easy to forget
> or get wrong. It's also not very clear why this particular sort
> of ABI break in a stable branch is any worse than other hazards.

> I'm not really set either way, but my first thought is to drop
> the special mechanism.

Hearing no objections, I went ahead and wrote a patch for that.
Doing that reminded me that it's a really incomplete check anyway,
as it only verifies that the last auto-assigned NodeTag number
hasn't changed. Re-ordering earlier entries, for example, would
not get detected. So even on its own terms it's little more than
a stopgap; the buildfarm's libabigail checks are far more thorough.

Barring objections, I'll push this soon.

regards, tom lane

Attachment Content-Type Size
v1-0001-Remove-gen_node_support.pl-s-ad-hoc-ABI-stability.patch text/x-diff 3.8 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2026-04-15 18:26:22 Re: Add missing period to DETAIL messages
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2026-04-15 18:10:59 Re: Documenting coding style