Andres Freund wrote:
> Ugh. I personally would say that's because that commit did stuff that we
> normally trie hard not to do. While ColumnDef at least isn't serialized
> into catalogs, we normally trie hard to break struct layout. Peter,
> shouldn't that field at the very least have been added a
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 01:04:40PM -0500, Mat Arye wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:41 AM, Peter Eisentraut <
> peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2/11/18 23:14, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > On 2018-02-11 22:19:30 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Not sure what to do about it at this po
On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 8:41 AM, Peter Eisentraut <
peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 2/11/18 23:14, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2018-02-11 22:19:30 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Not sure what to do about it at this point. We could move that field to
> >> the end for 10.3, leaving 10.2
On 2/11/18 23:14, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-02-11 22:19:30 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Not sure what to do about it at this point. We could move that field to
>> the end for 10.3, leaving 10.2 as the only ABI-incompatible minor release,
>> but I don't know that that really makes things any bett
On 2018-02-11 22:19:30 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Not sure what to do about it at this point. We could move that field to
> the end for 10.3, leaving 10.2 as the only ABI-incompatible minor release,
> but I don't know that that really makes things any better than leaving it
> as-is. Somewhere aroun
Mat Arye writes:
> We recently found that people who had compiled the TimescaleDB extension
> against 10.1 (or installed our binary versions via yum, apt, etc.) had
> their extension break when they upgraded to 10.2 due to changes of some
> underlying structs between the two minor versions.
> In p
Andres Freund writes:
> On 2018-02-11 21:50:32 -0500, Mat Arye wrote:
>> In particular, in the commit
>> https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=1597948c962a1407c01fc492c44917c097efa92e
>> the structure of the ColumnDef struct changed.
> Ugh. I personally would say that
Hi,
On 2018-02-11 21:50:32 -0500, Mat Arye wrote:
> We recently found that people who had compiled the TimescaleDB extension
> against 10.1 (or installed our binary versions via yum, apt, etc.) had
> their extension break when they upgraded to 10.2 due to changes of some
> underlying structs betw
Hi All,
I am writing to get some advice on extension packaging for minor version
upgrades in Postgres.
We recently found that people who had compiled the TimescaleDB extension
against 10.1 (or installed our binary versions via yum, apt, etc.) had
their extension break when they upgraded to 10.2 d
