Re: abi-compliance-check failure due to recent changes to pg_{clear,restore}_{attribute,relation}_stats()

On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 3:28 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I was imagining this working more like what Tom suggested. IOW we'd use
> the latest commit listed in the file (perhaps always the first one) as the
> baseline.

You said "I suppose this idea is entirely dependent on the maintainers
of the abi-compliance-check code to adapt to it", which I understood
to mean that you thought that the upstream tool would somehow be made
to accept these kinds of ignore files. Obviously I misunderstood.

> Of course, this doesn't work too well if we have a bunch of ABI
> breaks between buildfarm checks. But my guess is that we could deal with
> that pretty easily (e.g., make sure the buildfarm member in question runs
> for every commit on the stable branch).

In practice I think that it would be up to the person writing the next
suppression to verify that there were no unrelated changes in the
interim between their new blessed/suppression commit and the prior
one. That doesn't seem super onerous to me, given that even false
positives don't seem to be all that common with
abi-compliance-checker.

--
Peter Geoghegan