Thanks for the response. I have to also ask about binary compatibility in the
other direction. I.e. An application compiled against 9.6 libpq headers but
running against the 9.3 libpq library. Obviously you'd never choose to deploy
this way in general, but we're not using any new libpq features and so I guess
the question is whether or not existing libpq library features are forwards
compatible with later compilations?
While this is far from ideal, we want the next release of our application to be
compiled against the target libpq version (9.6), however the PostgreSQL version
on the deployment platforms isn't under our control. It could be 9.3 for a time
before getting upgraded to 9.6.
Testing suggests that all's ok but, if we can't be sure, we'll have to either
compile the next release of the application against 9.3 until we know all
PostgreSQL platforms have been upgraded to 9.6. Or make it a dependency of the
application release that the PostgreSQL platform is 9.6.
Andy
From: Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com>
Sent: 03 November 2016 09:35
To: Andy Halsall
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] libpq backwards compatbility
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Andy Halsall <an...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> Can we assume that the 9.6 libpq library is backwards compatible with
> applications compiled against 9.3 headers? I wouldn't expect to have to
> re-compile our application against 9.6 libpq headers and redeploy because
> we're not taking advantage of any new features and nothing seems to have
> been deprecated.
>
> The release notes talk about additions to libpq in section E.2.3.9 "Client
> Interfaces". I'd expect any un-changed features to be backwards compatible.
> Limited testing suggests this is so but I can't find a clear statement.
>
> Could somebody please advise?
libpq has a long history of keeping a backward-compatible interface
across the ages, and that pays in the long term. Your application
compiled with 9.3 headers would link to libpq.so.5, so that would be
binary-compatible with 9.6. For consistency's sake, you may want to
recompile it anyway.
--
Michael
