Re: ABI Compliance Checker GSoC Project
От | Álvaro Herrera |
---|---|
Тема | Re: ABI Compliance Checker GSoC Project |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 202509121737.dwr6wrqrqrga@alvherre.pgsql обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: ABI Compliance Checker GSoC Project (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: ABI Compliance Checker GSoC Project
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2025-Sep-12, Tom Lane wrote: > My concern is that when we get a report, we might decide to apply > some fix to remove the ABI delta, or we might decide it's intentional > and/or harmless and leave the code as-is. In the latter case, the > ABI-checking BF animal(s) will be red until the next release is made, > which helps nobody, particularly because it will probably interfere > with noticing any ABI breaks in later commits. The solution I propose for this (which I have mentioned before) is to allow for our source tree to carry exclusion files. The ABI checker would refrain from turning red for any breaks that match what's in those files. For instance I think in branch REL_18_STABLE we would add a subdirectory like /src/tools/abicheck-exclude/18.1 where we would store one exclusion file that suppresses reporting for each ABI-breaking change between 18.0 and 18.1. (Or maybe name the subdir REL_18_1). So when we break ABI compatibility after having 18.0 out and before releasing 18.1, the animal turns red and we'd either add a file there or fix the ABI break -- both of which turn the animal back to green. It's somewhat equivalent to valgrind.supp, except the files are version-specific. -- Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "Once again, thank you and all of the developers for your hard work on PostgreSQL. This is by far the most pleasant management experience of any database I've worked on." (Dan Harris) http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-performance/2006-04/msg00247.php
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: