| 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 |
| 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 |