public inbox for [email protected]  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed

From: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
To: Daniel Gustafsson <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Do we still need gen_node_support.pl's nodetag ABI stability check?
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2026 21:46:46 -0400
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>
	<[email protected]>

Daniel Gustafsson <[email protected]> writes:
> On 15 Apr 2026, at 21:30, Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> wrote:
>> 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?

Yeah, my answer to that is still "why is this particular case more
important than any other ABI breakage you might cause while hacking
on a back branch?".  I quite agree that being able to check for ABI
breakage locally can be useful.  But what we ought to do is make it
easier for people to use libabigail for that without spinning up a
local buildfarm instance.  Perhaps we could extract the buildfarm's
ABICompCheck.pm script into some standalone tool.

			regards, tom lane

view thread (7+ messages)  latest in thread

reply

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: [email protected]
  Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
  Subject: Re: Do we still need gen_node_support.pl's nodetag ABI stability check?
  In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox