On Mon, Oct 13, 2025 at 4:22 PM Christoph Berg <[email protected]> wrote: > Re: Robert Haas > > My theory is that they'll be even less impressed if they try to use a > > supposedly-compatible library and it breaks a bunch of stuff, but I > > wonder what Christoph Berg (cc'd) thinks. > > It would also hinder adoption of PG in more places. There are > currently thousands of software products that link to libpq in some > form, and it would take several years to have them all fixed if > ABI/API compatibility were broken. Chasing the long tail there is > hard; we get to witness that every year with upstreams that aren't > compatible with PG18 yet. For some extensions, I'm still waiting to > get my PG17 (or PG16!) patches merged.
So you support calling it libpq.so.5 forever, no matter how much we change? -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
