Re: Question and suggestion about application binary compatibility policy

From: "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Question and suggestion about application binary compatibility policy
Date: 2016-06-23 06:42:57
Message-ID: 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1F598E65@G01JPEXMBYT05
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:bruce(at)momjian(dot)us]
> We have this text in src/tools/RELEASE_CHANGES:
> ...
> This is saying running against a mismatched minor version should be fine
> for a binary.

Thanks for a good rationale.

> I know this thread is old but it bounced around a lot of ideas. I think
> there are some open questions:
>
> * Will a new application link against an older minor-version libpq?
> * Will an old application link against a newer minor-version libpq?

The former does not always hold true, if the application uses a new libpq function which is not in an old miner-version. But I think the backward-compatibility is enough.

Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2016-06-23 06:50:26 Re: [BUG] pg_basebackup from disconnected standby fails
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2016-06-23 04:53:33 Re: Documentation fixes for pg_visibility