On Tue, Dec 3, 2024, at 7:41 PM, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 02:45:22PM +0100, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > > If we don't want to accept that risk (for which I see no argument, but > > happy to be proven wrong), I would suggest to use the foreach-pfree > > pattern Michael first proposed for the backbranches, and the new memory > > context in master. I think this is conducive to better coding overall > > as we clean things up in this area. > > Is it really worth betting on nobody doing something that does a > sizeof(PGOutputData) for the stable branches? People like doing fancy > things, and we would not hear about such problems except if we push > the button making it a possibility because compiled code suddenly > breaks after a minor release update of the core engine.
Although, Debian code search [1] says this data structure is not used outside PostgreSQL, I wouldn't risk breaking third-party extensions during a minor upgrade (even if it is known that such data structure is from that particular output plugin -- pgoutput -- and other output plugins generally have its own data structure). +1 from Alvaro's proposal. [1] https://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=PGOutputData&literal=0 -- Euler Taveira EDB https://www.enterprisedb.com/
