From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, david@justatheory.com,
        Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Subject: Re: abi-compliance-check failure due to recent changes to
 pg_{clear,restore}_{attribute,relation}_stats()
In-reply-to: <aPKFmL8VjOKNVLcw@nathan>
References: <aPJ03E2itovDBcKX@nathan> <1713509.1760721320@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <aPKFmL8VjOKNVLcw@nathan>
Comments: In-reply-to Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
	message dated "Fri, 17 Oct 2025 13:06:16 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1723301.1760726712.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 14:45:12 -0400
Message-ID: <1723302.1760726712@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1723302.1760726712%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 01:15:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> FWIW, I favor the approach of having an in-tree, per-branch file
>> containing the commit hash of a commit that is the current ABI
>> reference for that branch.

> I'm new to the topic, but IMHO the per-branch file approach is by far the
> best approach.  Not only is it much more flexible, but we could even use it
> as a centralized list of ABI breaks for a given branch with justification
> for each.  I can't think of any strong advantages of keeping this stuff in
> git metadata.  git itself uses a file for blame.ignoreRevsFile...

Good idea.  We'd have to allow comments in the file, but that's
probably a good thing anyway.

			regards, tom lane