On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 at 00:32, Tom Lane wrote:
> Another idea could be an in-tree file, different in each branch,
> that records the hash of the commit we presently want to compare to.
> This would require a small amount of additional manual effort to
> maintain, but maybe it's the most flexible wa
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 at 00:07, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> Presumably you could work your way backwards until the ABI break disappears.
> That should minimize the number of commits you have to compile and test.
Makes sense. Thanks for the suggestion!
Regards,
Mankirat
On Sun, 13 Jul 2025 at 05:42, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nitpick: I think something is backwards about the labeling. AFAICS
> the described ABI change was made by 53cd0b71e not its predecessor
> 9dcc76414. It does look like a useful bit of information once
> correctly attributed, though.
Thanks for point
Hello Hackers,
I have been working on this project with David since last month.
I've written some blogs about the progress, the most recent one is here [1]
Here's the draft pull request for anyone interested in reviewing the code: [2]
On Wed, 9 Jul 2025 at 17:57, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> Were you
On Wed, 4 Jun 2025 at 19:13, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 at 23:50, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> > > What’s the error? Maybe we can fix it.
> >
> > As per my knowledge Postgres internal code lacks visibility annotations on
> > its symbols, which causes compilation errors when fvisibi
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 at 23:50, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> >> Ummm, are you saying that it complains about changes to unexported
> >> symbols also?
>
> This is a good question.
No, it doesn’t complain about unexported symbols.
But it does complain about some exported symbols that, in my understanding,
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 at 20:49, Álvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> I don't think it's the
> job of the tool to determine that this ABI difference is okay.
> Ultimately that's for a human to determine,
Yes, but it would be better if we could automate that thing to some
extent, along with the development of t
Thanks for the introduction :D
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 at 00:36, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> Since the work naturally gets into what’s considered a public API and
> what’s not, we feel that hackers is the best place to ask questions about
> bits to include and exclude, as well as other questions relate
