| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>, Mankirat Singh <mankiratsingh1315(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: ABI Compliance Checker GSoC Project |
| Date: | 2025-09-12 17:53:17 |
| Message-ID: | 2220351.1757699597@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
=?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> writes:
> On 2025-Sep-12, Tom Lane wrote:
>> My concern is that when we get a report, we might decide to apply
>> some fix to remove the ABI delta, or we might decide it's intentional
>> and/or harmless and leave the code as-is.
> The solution I propose for this (which I have mentioned before) is to
> allow for our source tree to carry exclusion files. The ABI checker
> would refrain from turning red for any breaks that match what's in those
> files.
That seems substantially more complicated than just moving which
commit is considered the baseline. It might be less reliable too:
if the exclusions are written sloppily, they might hide problems
we'd rather find out about. (I do not regard valgrind suppression
files as a model of good engineering...)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ranier Vilela | 2025-09-12 17:53:56 | Avoid resource leak (src/test/modules/test_binaryheap/test_binaryheap.c) |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2025-09-12 17:52:01 | Re: plan shape work |