Re: abi-compliance-checker

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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