Re: Proposal: Document ABI Compatibility

Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> writes:

> On 24.06.24 22:26, David E. Wheeler wrote:
>>> But now we're talking about API. That might be subject of another
>> document or another section in this one, but it seems confusing to mix
>> this with the ABI discussion.
>> Hrm. They’re super closely-related in my mind, as an extension
>> developer. I need to know both! I guess I’m taking of this policy as
>> what I can expect may be changed (and how to adapt to it) and what
>> won’t.
>> That said, I’m fine to remove the API stuff if there’s consensus
>> objecting to it, to be defined in a separate policy (perhaps on the
>> same doc page).
>
> I took at a stab at this, using some of your text, but discussing API
> and ABI separately.

This looks good to me, just one minor nitpick:

> ### Minor versions
>
> PostgreSQL makes an effort to avoid server API breaks in minor
> releases. In general, extension code that compiles and works with
> some minor release should also compile and work with any other minor
> release, past or future.

I think this should explicitly say "any other minor release within [or
"from" or "of"?] the same major version" (and ditto in the ABI section).

- ilmari