Re: Is a UDF binary portable across different minor releases and PostgreSQL distributions?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Michael Paquier
Тема Re: Is a UDF binary portable across different minor releases and PostgreSQL distributions?
Дата
Msg-id CAB7nPqRcm+OZGUtZ9ELcHrBY7bB5bA7+U2EammvOT4qpE_bbHg@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Is a UDF binary portable across different minor releases and PostgreSQL distributions?  ("Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki
<tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
>> To make this situation better, what we'd really need is a bunch of work
>> to identify and document the specific APIs that we would promise won't change
>> within a release branch.  That idea has been batted around before, but
>> nobody's stepped up to do all the tedious (and, no doubt, contentious) work
>> that would be involved.
>
> I can't yet imagine if such API (including data structures) can really be defined so that UDF developers feel
comfortablewith its flexibility.  I wonder how other OSes provide such API and ABI.
 

That would be a lot of work, for little result. And at the end the
risk 0 does not exist and things may change. I still quite like the
answer being the mix between 1 and 2: we do our best to maintain the
backend APIs stable, but be careful that things may break if a change
is proving to be necessary.
-- 
Michael



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: "Tsunakawa, Takayuki"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Is a UDF binary portable across different minor releases and PostgreSQL distributions?
Следующее
От: Amit Kapila
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [sqlsmith] crashes in RestoreSnapshot on hot standby