From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
cc: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>,
        PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Stability of queryid in minor versions
In-reply-to: <Zhxu97YMuqfiY9Us@paquier.xyz>
References: <CAApHDvpYGE6h0cD9UO-eHySPynPj1L3J=HxT+A7Ud8_Yo6AuzA@mail.gmail.com> <Zhxu97YMuqfiY9Us@paquier.xyz>
Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
	message dated "Mon, 15 Apr 2024 09:04:07 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <588800.1713143974.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2024 21:19:34 -0400
Message-ID: <588801.1713143974@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/588801.1713143974%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2024 at 11:20:16AM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
>> 1. We cannot change Node enums in minor versions
>> 2. We're *unlikely* to add fields to Node types in minor versions, and
>> if we did we'd likely be leaving them out of the jumble calc, plus it
>> seems highly unlikely any new field we wedged into the padding would
>> relate at all to the parsed query.

> Since 16 these new fields would be added by default unless the node
> attribute query_jumble_ignore is appended to it.

They'd also be written/read by outfuncs/readfuncs, thereby breaking
stored views/rules if the Node is one that can appear in a parsetree.
So the bar to making such a change in a stable branch would be very
high.

			regards, tom lane