Feedback-ID: i0fe9450f:Fastmail
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2026 13:07:00 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Our ABI diff infrastructure ignores enum SysCacheIdentifier
Message-ID: <aY6jZLUyA2d4gnB7@paquier.xyz>
References: <289125.1770913057@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="/wouElSZPOWvh1lt"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <289125.1770913057@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/aY6jZLUyA2d4gnB7%40paquier.xyz>
Precedence: bulk


--/wouElSZPOWvh1lt
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Feb 12, 2026 at 11:17:37AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I discovered $SUBJECT while working on commits dbb09fd8e et al.
> The point of those commits was to back-patch addition of a syscache
> that previously existed only in v18+, so naturally I was concerned
> about not breaking ABI by changing any existing syscache's ID.
> I tested whether abidiff would bleat about it if I intentionally
> changed an ID, and found that *it didn't*.

Well.  That's annoying.  This one is important to be careful about.

> As for SysCacheIdentifier, the root of the problem is that
> SearchSysCache and friends are declared to take "int cacheId"
> not "enum SysCacheIdentifier cacheId".  Likely we should change
> that in HEAD, but that'd be an actual not theoretical ABI break
> (the enum's not necessarily int-width).

Enforcing a type for this sounds like a good idea in the long term on
HEAD, yes, even putting the ABI argument aside for a moment.  I'd
suggest the addition of an extra typedef in the code generated for=20
syscache_ids.h to save from a couple of enum markers in these
declarations, once refactored to use the new enum type.

> In the back branches
> I'm thinking about adding a dummy function just for this purpose,
> more or less as in the under-commented patch attached.
>=20
> Thoughts?

Adding a comment explaining why this function needs to exist would be
good.
--
Michael

--/wouElSZPOWvh1lt
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=1mSn
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--/wouElSZPOWvh1lt--