From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: abi-compliance-checker |
Date: | 2023-05-28 16:34:23 |
Message-ID: | CAH2-Wzk9jtt9i+jeU2WCDo+Q7NSy_TYP_qDJgaNKiZFtYj4omw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, May 28, 2023 at 8:37 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> I gather it'd catch things like NodeTag enum assignments changing,
> which is something we really need to have a check for.
Right. Any ABI break that involves machine-generated translation units
seems particularly prone to being overlooked. Just eyeballing code
(and perhaps double-checking struct layout using pahole) seems
inadequate.
I'll try to come up with a standard abi-compliance-checker Postgres
workflow once I'm back from pgCon. It already looks like
abi-compliance-checker is capable of taking most of the guesswork out
of ABI compatibility in stable releases, without any real downside,
which is encouraging. I have spent very little time on this, so it's
quite possible that some detail or other was overlooked.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jonathan S. Katz | 2023-05-28 18:21:53 | Re: Docs: Encourage strong server verification with SCRAM |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-05-28 15:39:44 | Re: abi-compliance-checker |