pg.ddx.io pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, david@justatheory.com, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Subject: Re: abi-compliance-check failure due to recent changes to pg_{clear,restore}_{attribute,relation}_stats()
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 14:39:15 -0500
Message-ID: <aPKbY4vzdNWoKloK@nathan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAH2-Wzne4pkk+jEg0vQC8qSdqHHqt64HHRgkzud3hvkGWKNnjA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <aPJ03E2itovDBcKX@nathan>
<1713509.1760721320@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<aPKFmL8VjOKNVLcw@nathan>
<1723302.1760726712@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<aPKUzk2xFhZBbWmz@nathan>
<CAH2-WznQY7UaGGdAgg0crnJ8j1R3MW8rMqEynDBMTio+7WAYXA@mail.gmail.com>
<aPKY4fJVgKrX76p-@nathan>
<CAH2-Wzne4pkk+jEg0vQC8qSdqHHqt64HHRgkzud3hvkGWKNnjA@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 03:33:28PM -0400, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 3:28 PM Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I was imagining this working more like what Tom suggested. IOW we'd use
>> the latest commit listed in the file (perhaps always the first one) as the
>> baseline.
>
> You said "I suppose this idea is entirely dependent on the maintainers
> of the abi-compliance-check code to adapt to it", which I understood
> to mean that you thought that the upstream tool would somehow be made
> to accept these kinds of ignore files. Obviously I misunderstood.
Sorry, I wasn't clear there.
>> Of course, this doesn't work too well if we have a bunch of ABI
>> breaks between buildfarm checks. But my guess is that we could deal with
>> that pretty easily (e.g., make sure the buildfarm member in question runs
>> for every commit on the stable branch).
>
> In practice I think that it would be up to the person writing the next
> suppression to verify that there were no unrelated changes in the
> interim between their new blessed/suppression commit and the prior
> one. That doesn't seem super onerous to me, given that even false
> positives don't seem to be all that common with
> abi-compliance-checker.
Agreed. Even if someone forgets to do that validation, the chances of
missing something seem low.
--
nathan
view thread (70+ messages) latest in thread
Message-ID: <aPKbY4vzdNWoKloK@nathan>
Permalink: ../aPKbY4vzdNWoKloK@nathan/
Also on: postgresql.org/message-id/aPKbY4vzdNWoKloK@nathan
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: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: nathandbossart@gmail.com, pg@bowt.ie, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, andrew@dunslane.net
Subject: Re: abi-compliance-check failure due to recent changes to pg_{clear,restore}_{attribute,relation}_stats()
In-Reply-To: <aPKbY4vzdNWoKloK@nathan>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox