Change wording for PG_MODULE_MAGIC inclusion
Hackorum builds and tests every patch posted to the lists, not only commitfest submissions. This is Hackorum's own CI rather than the PostgreSQL project's, and it is still under testing - please report anything that looks wrong.
You can run a PostgreSQL built from this patch straight from Docker, with no checkout and no build:
docker run --rm -p 5432:5432 ghcr.io/hackorum-dev/postgres-patch:t76011psql -h localhost -U postgresBuilt from patchset v5 (message #5), July 27, 2026 at 10:25 PM.
Every patchset is also pushed to a branch of our PostgreSQL fork, so you can check out the same tree CI built. Without a PostgreSQL checkout:
git clone --branch t76011_5 https://github.com/hackorum-dev/postgres.gitIn a checkout you already have, add the fork once:
git remote add hackorum https://github.com/hackorum-dev/postgres.gitthen, for this patchset and every later one:
git fetch hackorum t76011_5 && git checkout t76011_5Patchset v5 (message #5) is on t76011_5
With 8.1 being fairly far down on the EOL list, it seems about time to update
the docs regarding PG_MODULE_MAGIC to mention the pre-8.2 #ifdef guards as an
exception and not the default. Not sure if a Note should be used, or just a
paragraph, so opted for a paragraph.
This also removes the last two occurrences in the code.
cheers ./daniel
Attachments:
pg_module_magic.patchapplication/octet-stream; name=pg_module_magic.patchDownload+8-18
Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
With 8.1 being fairly far down on the EOL list, it seems about time to update
the docs regarding PG_MODULE_MAGIC to mention the pre-8.2 #ifdef guards as an
exception and not the default. Not sure if a Note should be used, or just a
paragraph, so opted for a paragraph.
Uh, why would anybody be reading the pg10 docs in order to compile
modules for 8.2? I vote to just drop the suggestion that there needs to
be an #ifdef guard altogether.
--
�lvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
Uh, why would anybody be reading the pg10 docs in order to compile
modules for 8.2? I vote to just drop the suggestion that there needs to
be an #ifdef guard altogether.
+1 ... if you are reading the current docs, they're going to tell you
lots of things that won't work in 8.1.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
On 30 Aug 2017, at 16:35, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
With 8.1 being fairly far down on the EOL list, it seems about time to update
the docs regarding PG_MODULE_MAGIC to mention the pre-8.2 #ifdef guards as an
exception and not the default. Not sure if a Note should be used, or just a
paragraph, so opted for a paragraph.Uh, why would anybody be reading the pg10 docs in order to compile
modules for 8.2? I vote to just drop the suggestion that there needs to
be an #ifdef guard altogether.
I would not object to that, I was being a bit too careful I think.
cheers ./daniel
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
On 30 Aug 2017, at 16:51, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
Uh, why would anybody be reading the pg10 docs in order to compile
modules for 8.2? I vote to just drop the suggestion that there needs to
be an #ifdef guard altogether.+1 ... if you are reading the current docs, they're going to tell you
lots of things that won't work in 8.1.
Patch updated with dropping the #ifdef guard paragraph. Also removed the
mention of when the magic block was introduced as it seemed an odd piece of
archaeology to keep around when the guard paragraph was removed.
cheers ./daniel
On 8/30/17 13:28, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
On 30 Aug 2017, at 16:51, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
Uh, why would anybody be reading the pg10 docs in order to compile
modules for 8.2? I vote to just drop the suggestion that there needs to
be an #ifdef guard altogether.+1 ... if you are reading the current docs, they're going to tell you
lots of things that won't work in 8.1.Patch updated with dropping the #ifdef guard paragraph. Also removed the
mention of when the magic block was introduced as it seemed an odd piece of
archaeology to keep around when the guard paragraph was removed.
committed
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs
On 31 Aug 2017, at 04:42, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 8/30/17 13:28, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
On 30 Aug 2017, at 16:51, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
Uh, why would anybody be reading the pg10 docs in order to compile
modules for 8.2? I vote to just drop the suggestion that there needs to
be an #ifdef guard altogether.+1 ... if you are reading the current docs, they're going to tell you
lots of things that won't work in 8.1.Patch updated with dropping the #ifdef guard paragraph. Also removed the
mention of when the magic block was introduced as it seemed an odd piece of
archaeology to keep around when the guard paragraph was removed.committed
Thanks!
cheers ./daniel
--
Sent via pgsql-docs mailing list (pgsql-docs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-docs