On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 5:48 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com>

> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > On July 9, 2015 9:13:20 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >>Unfortunately I don't know what that means about the API.  Does it mean
> >>that none of the functions declared in any .h file can have their
> >>signatures changed?  But new functions can be added?
> >
> > That's the safest way. Sometimes you can decide that a function can not
> sanely be called by external code and thus change the signature. But I'd
> rather not risk or here, IRS quite possible that one pod these is used by a
> extension.
> Where are we on this? Could there be a version for <= 9.2?

Once the code has to be rewritten, my argument that it has been working "in
the field" for a while doesn't really apply anymore.  It is beyond what I
feel comfortable trying to do, especially as I have no "test case" of 3rd
party code to verify I haven't broken it.

I still think is a good idea, but for someone who knows more about linkers
and .so files than I do.

If I were faced with upgrading a 9.2 instance with many tens of thousands
of objects, I would just backpatch the existing code and compile it to make
a binary used only for the purposes of the upgrade.



Reply via email to