Re: ABI Compliance Checker GSoC Project

On Sep 1, 2025, at 09:12, David E. Wheeler <david(at)justatheory(dot)com> wrote:

>> Also, I think we can also have a configuration option for animal owners to toggle ABI change status on or off, thoughts?
>
> Mabye? Might be worth waiting to see how much of an issue it is. If there is a failure a then a fix, it should turn green again. It might not be necessary.
>
> What do you think, Hackers?

I had baza configured to test ABI changes since the .1 tags for each of the maintenance branches for the past few days to give a feel for what those failures look like. It was easy to configure:

tag_for_branch => {
REL_17_STABLE => 'REL_17_1',
REL_16_STABLE => 'REL_16_1',
REL_15_STABLE => 'REL_15_1',
REL_14_STABLE => 'REL_14_1',
REL_13_STABLE => 'REL_13_1',
}

You can see the results from today here:

REL_18_RC1 -> f256a7b
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_stage_log.pl?nm=baza&dt=2025-09-08%2012%3A42%3A42&stg=abi-compliance-check

REL_17_1 -> 3e6dfcf
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_stage_log.pl?nm=baza&dt=2025-09-08%2012%3A28%3A55&stg=abi-compliance-check

REL_16_1 -> 12f5768
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_stage_log.pl?nm=baza&dt=2025-09-08%2012%3A14%3A10&stg=abi-compliance-check

REL_15_1 -> 1852ec5
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_stage_log.pl?nm=baza&dt=2025-09-08%2012%3A00%3A02&stg=abi-compliance-check

REL_14_1 -> ea65c88
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_stage_log.pl?nm=baza&dt=2025-09-05%2012%3A10%3A11&stg=abi-compliance-check

REL_13_1 -> dbef9cb
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_stage_log.pl?nm=baza&dt=2025-09-05%2012%3A00%3A02&stg=abi-compliance-check

The RC1 change surprised me a little; here’s the log:

> Leaf changes summary: 1 artifact changed
> Changed leaf types summary: 0 leaf type changed
> Removed/Changed/Added functions summary: 0 Removed, 1 Changed, 0 Added function
> Removed/Changed/Added variables summary: 0 Removed, 0 Changed, 0 Added variable
>
> 1 function with some sub-type change:
>
> [C] 'function void CheckValidResultRel(ResultRelInfo*, CmdType, List*)' has some sub-type changes:
> parameter 4 of type 'List*' was added
> parameter 3 of type 'List*' changed:
> entity changed from 'List*' to 'typedef OnConflictAction'
> type size changed from 8 to 4 (in bytes)
> type alignment changed from 0 to 4

Presumably this is expected, but it looks like it might be an issue if it weren’t a pre-release change, yes?

In any event, I’ve restored the default configuration so that tomorrow’s builds will start comparing from the latest tag in each branch, which should return all but REL_18_STABLE to passing again.

Anyone else interested in trying out the compliance checker on their build farm animals? It works only on Linux for now, I believe.

Best,

David