Feedback-ID: ia2694551:Fastmail
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 12:31:05 +0100
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
To: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org>, 
	Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Potential ABI breakage in upcoming minor releases
Message-ID: <202411151131.stkki3bzplzv@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20241114224108.d0.nmisch@google.com>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202411151131.stkki3bzplzv%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2024-Nov-14, Noah Misch wrote:

> I'm hearing the only confirmed impact on non-assert builds is the need to
> recompile timescaledb.  (It's unknown whether recompiling will suffice for
> timescaledb.  For assert builds, six PGXN extensions need recompilation.)  I
> don't see us issuing another set of back branch releases for the purpose of
> making a v16.4-built timescaledb avoid a rebuild.  The target audience would
> be someone who can get a new PostgreSQL build but can't get a new timescaledb
> build.  That feels like a small audience.  What's missing in that analysis?

I agree with your conclusion that no rewrap is needed.  I previously
said otherwise, based on claims that there were multiple extensions
causing crashes.  If the one crash we know about is because timescaledb
is using an unusual coding pattern, they can fix that more easily than
we can.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera         PostgreSQL Developer  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Los dioses no protegen a los insensatos.  Éstos reciben protección de
otros insensatos mejor dotados" (Luis Wu, Mundo Anillo)