| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, 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: | 2025-10-30 14:10:43 |
| Message-ID: | 21ABA09A-3E03-4DDF-BE9D-A916EFD8ABE0@justatheory.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Oct 30, 2025, at 09:55, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Trouble is, you then need an arbitrary client-made choice about which
> commit to run the ABI check against.
It’s currently coded to use the most recent tag or, if there is none in the branch, the branch root.
> If that code does something we
> realize we don't want, we're back up against the problem of moving the
> buildfarm configuration to fix it. I'd rather the decision be opt-in.
Fair. Just means that if no one adds a history file to a branch that branch will never be tested and there’s no automated way to realize it.
> (Also, the only rules I heard proposed for such client-driven choices
> involved git tags. I already explained why I don't want that: git
> tags are hard to modify and subject to too many other constraints.)
Yeah, it just went with the most recent tag to keep it simple, no other metadata.
D
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Chao Li | 2025-10-30 14:18:24 | Re: Mark ItemPointer arguments as const thoughoutly |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2025-10-30 14:00:05 | pg_plan_advice |