From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Is a UDF binary portable across different minor releases and PostgreSQL distributions? |
Date: | 2016-07-01 01:56:51 |
Message-ID: | CAB7nPqSnkbCjRX=sq7+WO-hm5AKt44Zik+x6q6aPmqpcARrEdw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki
<tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> I'd like to document the policy clearly in the upgrade section of PostgreSQL manual, eliminating any ambiguity, so that users can determine what they should do without fear like "may or may not work". Which of the following policies should I base on?
>
> Option 1:
> Rebuild UDFs with the target PostgreSQL distribution and minor release.
>
> Option 2:
> Rebuild UDFs with the target PostgreSQL distribution.
> You do not have to rebuild UDFs when you upgrade or downgrade the minor release. (If your UDF doesn't work after changing the minor release, it's the bug of PostgreSQL. You can report it to pgsql-bugs.)
That would not be a bug of PostgreSQL, the terms are incorrect. If
there is an API breakage, the extension needs to keep up in this case,
so it would be better to mention asking on the lists what may have
gone wrong.
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-07-01 02:08:51 | Re: _mdfd_getseg can be expensive |
Previous Message | Tsunakawa, Takayuki | 2016-07-01 01:35:00 | Re: Is a UDF binary portable across different minor releases and PostgreSQL distributions? |