From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Nitin Jadhav <nitinjadhavpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Back patch of Remove durable_rename_excl() |
Date: | 2025-01-27 15:13:51 |
Message-ID: | Z5eir4OlZOQU17Jd@nathan |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 09:47:22AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nitin Jadhav <nitinjadhavpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I noticed that the corruption issue related to two hardlinks pointing
>> to the same WAL file has been fixed in the master branch up to version
>> 16 in commit [1]. As a result, the function durable_rename_excl()
>> became unused and was removed in commit [2]. Since this corruption
>> issue is occurring in older versions, commit [1] has been backported
>> for versions 13 to 15 in commit [3]. However, I don't see the
>> backporting for commit [2]. Is there a specific reason for this?
>
> Fear of breaking extensions that use the function, perhaps?
> We don't like to break ABI in minor releases.
Yup [0]. It'd be nice if we could get folks to stop using it, but that
doesn't seem worth the ABI breakage, and from a couple of web searches,
there doesn't seem to be much external use, anyway. IMHO letting it slowly
phase out as versions go out of support is sufficient in this case.
[0] https://postgr.es/m/20220418182336.GA2298576%40nathanxps13
--
nathan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2025-01-27 15:14:17 | Re: BF member drongo doesn't like 035_standby_logical_decoding.pl |
Previous Message | Maxim Orlov | 2025-01-27 15:07:53 | Re: postgres_fdw could deparse ArrayCoerceExpr |