| From: | "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)justatheory(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Mankirat Singh <mankiratsingh1315(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: ABI Compliance Checker GSoC Project |
| Date: | 2025-09-21 20:59:58 |
| Message-ID: | D093515C-07AF-43AB-B37D-AD4E118D796C@justatheory.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sep 12, 2025, at 13:53, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> 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...)
It would certainly be easier to start with some marker for the baseline commit. We an always add some more complicated stuff in the future if it turns out to be desirable. I know there’s some stuff built in to Abigail for that. But IMHO it makes sense to start with the simplest solution and see whether anything else is needed later.
D
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Jones | 2025-09-21 22:02:21 | Re: Add notification on BEGIN ATOMIC SQL functions using temp relations |
| Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2025-09-21 19:39:09 | Re: We broke the defense against accessing other sessions' temp tables |