Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1wD6Cq-002bny-2c for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 15 Apr 2026 19:47:25 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1wD6Cq-001zGP-0D for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 15 Apr 2026 19:47:24 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1wD6Cp-001z6z-2G for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 15 Apr 2026 19:47:23 +0000 Received: from smtp.outgoing.loopia.se ([93.188.3.37]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1wD6Cm-00000001CRz-2GVO for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 15 Apr 2026 19:47:22 +0000 Received: from s807.loopia.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by s807.loopia.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83BBA5E888A for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2026 21:47:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from s979.loopia.se (unknown [172.22.191.6]) by s807.loopia.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 752335E77CB; Wed, 15 Apr 2026 21:47:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (unknown [172.22.191.5]) by s979.loopia.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71BAE10BC34A; Wed, 15 Apr 2026 21:47:17 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavis at amavis.loopia.se X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 tagged_above=-999 required=6.2 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: s473.loopia.se (amavis); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yesql.se Received: from s980.loopia.se ([172.22.191.5]) by localhost (s473.loopia.se [172.22.190.13]) (amavis, port 10024) with LMTP id w3gfoxw7ftWT; Wed, 15 Apr 2026 21:47:16 +0200 (CEST) X-Loopia-Auth: user X-Loopia-User: daniel@yesql.se X-Loopia-Originating-IP: 89.255.232.236 Received: from smtpclient.apple (customer-89-255-232-236.stosn.net [89.255.232.236]) (Authenticated sender: daniel@yesql.se) by s980.loopia.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3BD8B220160E; Wed, 15 Apr 2026 21:47:16 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yesql.se; s=loopiadkim1707475645; t=1776282436; bh=zdhfSDea7wbrWViE3SQR5In0XzXpqrJ7BuZC6QDbFCQ=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=WKz/CveHJDC0Yrvlp7VvFWgpjHvw3h+Sa8vCmHAcWZmtkvdYFnYuFtxSVPPF7zYO+ oM7b3CxJME/oOdp8tlCUoZ9aevWhJcCKBHcC3/MyBJTDn+735TWjgJfzEiX/5LUHnz H4ZBAT319+rVXF0tPGqfbNCQKDeKZEAS9v/07QZnCY7RgAv7vp/4tfxyjmPiIJc75f 4tAjeZYRhxOFaixou6r5rdEvPvywa1GopG5+tLXzN4gy+AuGkWOJWlyJJuOkUiKGtQ yfah2pBBM0iPOm+QsnJf6Hnamo8pgYSsEWnc1ballN8/2UOPjKaU6o44CFM6zYJpzI NYbuqHFDN9+Gw== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3776.700.51.11.2\)) Subject: Re: Do we still need gen_node_support.pl's nodetag ABI stability check? From: Daniel Gustafsson In-Reply-To: Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2026 21:47:05 +0200 Cc: Tom Lane , pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1977660F-C5E3-427B-AD2F-56F66803C320@yesql.se> References: <1458883.1776143073@sss.pgh.pa.us> To: Peter Eisentraut X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3776.700.51.11.2) List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk > On 15 Apr 2026, at 21:30, Peter Eisentraut = wrote: >=20 > On 14.04.26 07:04, Tom Lane wrote: >> On the one hand, there's much to be said for belt-and-suspenders-too >> safety checks. On the other hand, updating gen_node_support.pl is >> an extra manual step while creating a branch, so it's easy to forget >> or get wrong. It's also not very clear why this particular sort >> of ABI break in a stable branch is any worse than other hazards. >=20 > This might still be helpful because it checks during local builds and = doesn't rely on the buildfarm. But does it actually give a good enough answer to be relied upon when = passing the local check can fail the buildfarm check? -- Daniel Gustafsson