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 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 around the dot-two minor release is where uptake of a
> > >> new PG branch starts to become significant, IME, so preserving ABI
> > >> compatibility going forward from 10.2 might be more useful than
> > preserving
> > >> it against 10.0/10.1.
> > >
> > > Yea, I think the damage is done in this case, and we shouldn't make
> > > things even more complicated.
> > Yeah, lesson learned. Sorry.
> Thanks all for your responses. FWIW I agree that it's best to not revert
> this struct change and just keep ABI compatibility with 10.2 going forward.
> We will also integrate testing against the tip of 10 nightly going forward
> so that we can hopefully catch and report such issues early.
If it's not too much trouble, you could add whatever you're doing as
buildfarm module(s), as illustrated with BlackholeFDW.pm,
FileTextArrayFDW.pm, and RedisFDW.pm here:
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate