Re: Proposal: Document ABI Compatibility
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Proposal: Document ABI Compatibility |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmobzPcvRCu0=DULVt8RxcisGs41wi5oed3jFHuJYhWR3RA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Proposal: Document ABI Compatibility (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Proposal: Document ABI Compatibility
Re: Proposal: Document ABI Compatibility |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 3:39 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Me either. There are degrees of ABI compatibility Exactly this! What I think would be useful to document is our usual practices e.g. adding new struct members at the end of structs, trying to avoid changing public function signatures. If we document promises to extension authors, I don't know how much difference that will make: we'll probably end up needing to violate them at some point for one reason or another. But if we document what committers should do, then we might do better than we're now, because committers will be more likely to do it right, and extension authors can also read those instructions to understand what our practices are. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: