Thank you for providing the details. I agree to the concern about breaking extensions that depend on the function. Gradually phasing it out as versions become unsupported seems like a sensible approach.
Best Regards, Nitin Jadhav Azure Database for PostgreSQL Microsoft On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 8:43 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 09:47:22AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > Nitin Jadhav <nitinjadhavpostg...@gmail.com> writes: > >> I noticed that the corruption issue related to two hardlinks pointing > >> to the same WAL file has been fixed in the master branch up to version > >> 16 in commit [1]. As a result, the function durable_rename_excl() > >> became unused and was removed in commit [2]. Since this corruption > >> issue is occurring in older versions, commit [1] has been backported > >> for versions 13 to 15 in commit [3]. However, I don't see the > >> backporting for commit [2]. Is there a specific reason for this? > > > > Fear of breaking extensions that use the function, perhaps? > > We don't like to break ABI in minor releases. > > Yup [0]. It'd be nice if we could get folks to stop using it, but that > doesn't seem worth the ABI breakage, and from a couple of web searches, > there doesn't seem to be much external use, anyway. IMHO letting it slowly > phase out as versions go out of support is sufficient in this case. > > [0] https://postgr.es/m/20220418182336.GA2298576%40nathanxps13 > > -- > nathan
