From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>,
        pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Do we still need gen_node_support.pl's nodetag ABI stability
 check?
In-reply-to: <1977660F-C5E3-427B-AD2F-56F66803C320@yesql.se>
References: <1458883.1776143073@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <cd9faf75-370f-4305-9644-299e4404692b@eisentraut.org>
 <1977660F-C5E3-427B-AD2F-56F66803C320@yesql.se>
Comments: In-reply-to Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>
	message dated "Wed, 15 Apr 2026 21:47:05 +0200"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <2233109.1776304006.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2026 21:46:46 -0400
Message-ID: <2233110.1776304006@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/2233110.1776304006%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> writes:
> On 15 Apr 2026, at 21:30, Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
>> This might still be helpful because it checks during local builds and d=
oesn't rely on the buildfarm.

> But does it actually give a good enough answer to be relied upon when pa=
ssing
> 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