Hi, On 2021-06-20 19:56:56 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> writes: > > Looking at their release schedule on https://llvm.org/, I see we have > > a gamble to make. They currently plan to cut RC1 at the end of July, > > and to release in late September (every second LLVM major release > > coincides approximately with a PG major release). Option 1: wait > > until we branch for 14, and then push this to master so that at least > > seawasp can get back to looking for new problems, and then back-patch > > only after they release (presumably in time for our November > > releases). If their API change sticks, PostgreSQL crashes and gives > > weird results with the initial release of LLVM 13 until our fix comes > > out. Option 2: get ahead of their release and get this into 14 + > > August back branch releases based on their current/RC behaviour. If > > they decide to revert the change before the final release, we'll leak > > symbol names because we hold an extra reference, until we can fix > > that.
I think I'd vote for 2 or 2+ (backpatch immediately). > If that's an accurate characterization of the tradeoff, I have little > difficulty in voting for #2. A crash is strictly worse than a memory > leak. Besides which, I've heard little indication that they might > revert. We might be able to get them to revert and put in a different API, but I don't think it'd clearly be an improvement at this point. Greetings, Andres Freund
