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 1w7H1L-0058YG-2i for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2026 18:07:27 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1w7H1K-005OqD-0o for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2026 18:07:26 +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 1w7H1J-005Oq5-36 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2026 18:07:26 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.98.2) (envelope-from ) id 1w7H1I-00000001qTX-2XkE for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 30 Mar 2026 18:07:25 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 62UI7LOT2531743; Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:07:21 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Nathan Bossart cc: Dagfinn Ilmari =?utf-8?Q?Manns=C3=A5ker?= , Melanie Plageman , Peter Eisentraut , Andres Freund , =?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera , Pg Hackers Subject: Re: remove bits* types In-reply-to: References: <2493698.1774890452@sss.pgh.pa.us> <874ilx43tb.fsf@wibble.ilmari.org> Comments: In-reply-to Nathan Bossart message dated "Mon, 30 Mar 2026 13:00:07 -0500" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2531741.1774894041.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2026 14:07:21 -0400 Message-ID: <2531742.1774894041@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Nathan Bossart writes: > It's hard to get an exact count because the names are so common, but I'm > seeing <10 packages on codesearch.debian.net that might be affected, and > it's quite easy to fix (s/bits/uint/g). My experience is that we routinely > "break" extensions like this in new major versions, too. So, I'm not > convinced we need to do any kind of backward-compatibility work. In any > case, we have a lot of time between now and GA, so if a bunch of angry > extension authors come to my door with pitchforks, we can reconsider. Agreed. As incompatible changes go, this is pretty darn minor and easy to deal with. regards, tom lane