On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 03:29:21PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> writes: > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 10:09:54AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >> I'm starting to lean to the opinion that we need a re-wrap. > > > Perhaps. Even if we do rewrap for some reason, it's not a given that > > restoring the old struct size is net beneficial. If we restore the old > > struct > > size in v16.6, those who rebuild for v16.5 would need to rebuild again. > > I think what we should say is "sorry, 16.5 is broken for use with > these extensions, use another minor version". If we don't undo the > struct size change then 16.5 is effectively a major version update for > affected extensions: they cannot build a binary release that works > with both older and newer minor releases. That's a packaging > disaster, especially if it impacts more than timescale. The more > so if more than one release branch is affected.
Currently, we have Christoph Berg writing "I'd say the ship has sailed, a new release would now break things the other way round." and you writing in favor of undoing. It think it boils down to whether you want N people to recompile twice or M>N people to recompile once, where we don't know N or M except that M > N. Fortunately, the N are probably fairly well represented in this thread. So to all: please speak up by 2024-11-16T17:00+0000 if you think it's the wrong choice to bring back the v16.4 ABI and tell people to rebuild extensions built against v16.5 (likewise for corresponding versions of v14-v17). Currently, the plan of record is to do that.
