On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 5:48 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > On July 9, 2015 9:13:20 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Janes <jeff.ja...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > >>Unfortunately I don't know what that means about the API. Does it mean > >>that none of the functions declared in any .h file can have their > >>signatures changed? But new functions can be added? > > > > That's the safest way. Sometimes you can decide that a function can not > sanely be called by external code and thus change the signature. But I'd > rather not risk or here, IRS quite possible that one pod these is used by a > extension. > > Where are we on this? Could there be a version for <= 9.2? > Once the code has to be rewritten, my argument that it has been working "in the field" for a while doesn't really apply anymore. It is beyond what I feel comfortable trying to do, especially as I have no "test case" of 3rd party code to verify I haven't broken it. I still think is a good idea, but for someone who knows more about linkers and .so files than I do. If I were faced with upgrading a 9.2 instance with many tens of thousands of objects, I would just backpatch the existing code and compile it to make a binary used only for the purposes of the upgrade. Cheers, Jeff
