Re: PostgreSQL 12, JIT defaults

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 12, JIT defaults
Date: 2018-10-08 17:41:49
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
>> I am thinking so simple number should be good enough. We can require
>> equality - Just I need a signal so some is wrong - better than Postgres
>> crash.

> It'd cause constant conflicts and / or we would regularly forget updating it. It's not that trivial to determine what influences ABI compatibility.

There already is a PG major-version-number check embedded in the
PG_MODULE_MAGIC infrastructure, which is plenty for regular users.
It's not sufficient for developers working with HEAD, of course.

We could consider making that work off of catversion instead, but I don't
think it'd really improve matters to do so. catversion doesn't cover most
of what can break loadable modules, such as changes of Node data

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2018-10-08 17:42:44 Re: PostgreSQL 12, JIT defaults
Previous Message Laurenz Albe 2018-10-08 17:36:50 Re: Function to promote standby servers