public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Jelte Fennema-Nio <[email protected]>
To: Jacob Champion <[email protected]>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <[email protected]>
Cc: Christoph Berg <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]>
Cc: Andres Freund <[email protected]>
Cc: Tom Lane <[email protected]>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <[email protected]>
Cc: Thomas Munro <[email protected]>
Cc: Nazir Bilal Yavuz <[email protected]>
Cc: Antonin Houska <[email protected]>
Cc: Wolfgang Walther <[email protected]>
Cc: Devrim Gündüz <[email protected]>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: libpq-oauth: a mid-beta naming check
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2025 11:39:10 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGECzQTojfE6iOFT2c1Yp+1ezQYKBT1jGXmXa2W_M8pQGc1_5w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAOYmi+m5L=-S8QuZgLcSdHyXreVDCVr2NBbCZVcdVzE8B2y5Xg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <[email protected]>
<CAOYmi+n9DHS_xUatuuspdC8tjtaMzY8P11Y9y5Fz+2pjikkL9g@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAOYmi+=2cArQoSSRdAYwx2TBSHL5r0UhX28Q-5TP=0g-sxBXCA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAGECzQShbNtypPqabVv2eKJP=0Ejox=6f8k8G1E-2GN6Ag1kAA@mail.gmail.com>
<CAOYmi+=j9nLQFjQ8z0vyQmuhNMwsFbzvne_2S2pTbBGir4q6EQ@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAOYmi+k9uN2OQ_sXjztZYPSpPbfGmkkv4yhtPhyjNQ6vy7SSfA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAOYmi+=WA4ZfyHWt+4=yFV7VAXQWvNKsn4R=3PwLd4GfmSTiBA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAOYmi+=cs+gDTAH0L+3JzpRLeHPOXDQxu7MOfsbjah9SkAP_kw@mail.gmail.com>
<CAOYmi+=UsSnLM4K+hYkhrezpQROQ5jr=72feAkQ0Te8GJf3Fbg@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<CAOYmi+mXoq9dUagnkXDgWa72QjCg8SdagBz_yGPUdh1Px0XD5g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAOYmi+m5L=-S8QuZgLcSdHyXreVDCVr2NBbCZVcdVzE8B2y5Xg@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, 5 Aug 2025 at 01:20, Jacob Champion
<[email protected]> wrote:
> As far as I know, that
> work necessarily includes designing a stable ABI and figuring out a
> trusted place that users can put their plugins into. If we can do
> both, I think we can get rid of the -MAJOR versioning scheme entirely,
> because our use case will have been subsumed by the more general
> framework.
>
> So, as we approach Beta 3: can anyone think of a way that this plan will fail?
It's not entirely clear what plan exactly you talk about here. Are you
saying you want to remove the -MAJOR suffix now for PG18? Or you want
to postpone doing that until PG19, when you would have designed a
stable API?
Based on my current understanding from what you wrote, I think that
second option would make sense, and the first option seems sketchy.
Because we don't know yet what the PG19 API will look like.
Also, the breakage during libpq major upgrades that you describe,
while unfortunate, doesn't seem completely terrible. This only impacts
people updating system packages in place on machines, which (based on
my experience) has started to become a minority in production setups.
Also this will obviously only impact oauth users, which I expect not
to be that many right away. If your goal is to remove this
during-upgrade breakage after PG19, then I'd say that seems totally
fine for a new feature.
view thread (31+ 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], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: libpq-oauth: a mid-beta naming check
In-Reply-To: <CAGECzQTojfE6iOFT2c1Yp+1ezQYKBT1jGXmXa2W_M8pQGc1_5w@mail.gmail.com>
* 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