From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>,
        "David E. Wheeler" <david@justatheory.com>,
        Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>,
        Thomas Munro <tmunro@postgresql.org>,
        pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: pgsql: Add file_extend_method=posix_fallocate,write_zeros.
In-reply-to: <286104.1770911626@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <E1voE6M-001P1f-18@gemulon.postgresql.org>
 <aYXQ3VhPEqkTi0dZ@paquier.xyz>
 <10e5526f-364c-4867-b6f7-91f13a9494e4@eisentraut.org>
 <286104.1770911626@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	message dated "Thu, 12 Feb 2026 10:53:46 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <351361.1770923079.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2026 14:04:39 -0500
Message-ID: <351362.1770923079@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/351362.1770923079%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

I wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> writes:
>> I suppose technically this is an ABI change since the size of 
>> ConfigureNamesEnum is changed, but it seems this is irrelevant in 
>> practice.  Could it be possible to ignore stuff like this without manual 
>> intervention?

> I am working on a bug report to libabigail, arguing that this should
> not be reported as an ABI diff (at least not in --headersdir mode).

So I tried to make a small reproducer, and failed.  Then I ran the
buildfarm script (with abidiff enabled) against c6881f79228,
right before the last .abi-compliance-history update, and it passed.
IOW, the version of abidiff I have here does not seem to have this
bug.  It's 2.8.0 from last July or so.

Now I'm wondering exactly what libabigail releases crake and baza
are using.

			regards, tom lane