| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com>, 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: | 2025-10-29 21:37:36 |
| Message-ID: | 2909069.1761773856@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 07:07:36PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> That seems overcomplicated: how does the buildfarm know
>> what's a maintenance branch? I think the rule should be
>> just "run ABI checks if the control file exists, else not".
> I assume we would want ABI breakage checks on master between Beta 1 and
> the time we branch for the new major release in July.
In the past we've never really thought that ABI was more than mildly
solidified until around rc1. On the whole I'd rather wait until after
the branch before starting to check ABI, simply because I don't care
for the idea of adding .abi-compliance-history in the master branch
only to remove it again later. Having said that, it would be good
if we *could* choose to do that, so I still do not like having any
policy decisions about which branches to check hard-wired into the
buildfarm client.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Sami Imseih | 2025-10-29 21:58:22 | Re: [BUG] temporary file usage report with extended protocol and unnamed portals |
| Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2025-10-29 21:37:22 | Re: downcase_identifier(): use method table from locale provider |