On Tue, Apr 05, 2022 at 03:16:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:32 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> My point is that we want that to happen in HEAD, but it's not okay >>> for it to happen in a minor release of a stable branch. > >> I understand, but I am not sure that I agree. I think that if an >> extension stops compiling against a back-branch, someone will notice >> the next time they try to compile it and will fix it. Maybe that's not >> amazing, but I don't think it's a huge deal either.
I agree with Tom's argument. The internals of this structure should not have changed in a stable branch. > Well, perhaps it's not the end of the world, but it's still a large > PITA for the maintainer of such an extension. They can't "just fix it" > because some percentage of their userbase will still need to compile > against older minor releases. Nor have you provided any way to handle > that requirement via conditional compilation. For example, I recall that some external extensions make use of sizeof(PGPROC) for their own business. Isn't 412ad7a going to be a problem to change this structure's internals for already-compiled code on stable branches? -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
