From: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>, Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Nazir Bilal Yavuz <byavuz81(at)gmail(dot)com>, Antonin Houska <ah(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Wolfgang Walther <walther(at)technowledgy(dot)de>, Devrim Gündüz <devrim(at)gunduz(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PoC] Federated Authn/z with OAUTHBEARER |
Date: | 2025-04-25 20:31:16 |
Message-ID: | CAOYmi+=0huteqRBa_1ZMdKF9nPxsjOeMk=qzJiQVkeB_T3UKSQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 2:03 AM Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org> wrote:
> My point is that we should be trying to change the ABI-as-coded-in-the-
> filename as rarely as possible.
I agree, but I'm also trying to say I can't unilaterally declare
pieces of our internal structs to be covered by an ABI guarantee.
Maybe the rest of the ABI will never change because it'll be perfect,
but I point to the immediately preceding thread as evidence against
the likelihood of perfection on the first try. I'm trying to build in
air bags so we don't have to regret a mistake.
> Then side-by-side should not be required.
It's still required _during_ an ABI bump, though, if you don't want
things to break. Right?
--Jacob
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2025-04-25 21:13:14 | [SP-]GiST IOS visibility bug (was: Why doens't GiST require super-exclusive lock) |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2025-04-25 19:58:29 | Re: gcc 15 "array subscript 0" warning at level -O3 |