Re: dfmgr additional ABI version fields

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Chapman Flack <chap(at)anastigmatix(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: dfmgr additional ABI version fields
Date: 2021-11-19 07:58:52
Message-ID: YZdZPPoIRTkgnGzH@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 12:50:38PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I'm not a different vendor, but I do work on different code than you
> do, and I like this. Advanced Server accidentally dodges this problem
> at present by shipping with a different FUNC_MAX_ARGS value, but this
> is much cleaner.

I am pretty sure that Greenplum could benefit from something like
that. As a whole, using a string looks like a good idea for that.

> Would it be reasonable to consider something similar for the control
> file, for the benefit of distributions that are not the same on disk?

Hmm. Wouldn't that cause more harm than actual benefits?
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2021-11-19 08:18:22 issue in pgfdw_report_error()?
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2021-11-19 07:54:52 Re: wait event and archive_command