Re: Proposal: Document ABI Compatibility

On Mon, 2024-06-03 at 15:38 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > On 2024-06-03 14:43:17 -0400, David E. Wheeler wrote:
> > > * The ABI is guaranteed to change only in backward compatible ways in minor
> > > releases. If for some reason it doesn’t it’s a bug that will need to be
> > > fixed.
>
> > Thus I am not really on board with this statement as-is.
>
> Me either.  There are degrees of ABI compatibility, and we'll choose
> the least invasive way, but it's seldom the case that no conceivable
> extension will be broken.

oracle_fdw has been broken by minor releases several times in the past.
This may well be because of weird things that I am doing; still, my
experience is that minor releases are not always binary compatible.

> > It'd be interesting to see a few examples of actual minor-version-upgrade
> > extension breakages, so we can judge what caused them.
>
> Yes, that could be a fruitful discussion.

Digging through my commits brought up 6214e2b2280462cbc3aa1986e350e167651b3905,
for one.

Yours,
Laurenz Albe