From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Cc: David E. Wheeler <david@justatheory.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Cc: Mankirat Singh <mankiratsingh1315@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: abi-compliance-check failure due to recent changes to pg_{clear,restore}_{attribute,relation}_stats()
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 16:19:42 -0400
Message-ID: <1733767.1760732382@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aPKi9w8zP14tZonW@nathan>
References: <aPJ03E2itovDBcKX@nathan>
<1713509.1760721320@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<aPKFmL8VjOKNVLcw@nathan>
<1723302.1760726712@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<aPKUzk2xFhZBbWmz@nathan>
<78B81B37-9F27-4085-92DA-6B50DFC24361@justatheory.com>
<aPKi9w8zP14tZonW@nathan>
Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 03:52:18PM -0400, David E. Wheeler wrote:
>> If there is a tag _AFTER_ the listed SHA, should we prefer that tag as
>> the baseline?
> I don't see any need to consider tags at all. We'd initialize this file
> when creating the new STABLE branch with a baseline commit near a release
> candidate or the .0, and then we'd just add future baselines as needed.
> The ABI checks would always use the latest baseline, even if it points to
> something before the latest release tag. (At least, this is how I'm
> thinking about it.)
I agree. I don't think the buildfarm should consider git tags at all
in this behavior. One reason is that our release process dictates
applying tags at very specific times that aren't necessarily relevant
to deciding that an ABI break is or is not okay. I think we want
moving the baseline to be a considered reaction to an observed ABI
report, and not an action that is automatic according to some other
process.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, nathandbossart@gmail.com, david@justatheory.com, andrew@dunslane.net, mankiratsingh1315@gmail.com
Subject: Re: abi-compliance-check failure due to recent changes to pg_{clear,restore}_{attribute,relation}_stats()
In-Reply-To: <1733767.1760732382@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox