On Mon, Jun 2, 2025 at 11:39 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2025 at 4:35 AM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
> <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Amit, Duncan, Vignesh, Sawada-san,
> >
> > I searched on GitHub and confirmed that no extensions use sizeof(ReorderBufferTXN).
> > Based on that, can we proceed with the fix for backbenches?
> > Note that I checked only repositories that are opened on GitHub. Proprietary
> > ones and hosting on other services cannot be guaranteed.
> >
> > How I search
> > ===========
> > I searched on github with "sizeof(ReorderBufferTXN)", and 259 files were found.
> > All of them were either "reorderbuffer.c" or "reorderbuffer.cpp". reorderbuffer.c
> > came from the forked postgres repos, and "reorderbuffer.cpp" came from the
> > openGauss project, which tries to enhance postgres. In both cases, they are
> > server-side code and will rebase community's commits when we update the header
> > file and sizeof(ReorderBufferTXN).
> > In this check, I could not find extensions that refer to the size; only
> > server-side codes were found. Based on that, we could extend the struct
> > ReorderBufferTXN.
>
> Thank you for checking the source codes on Github. I personally think
> the chance that extensions depend on the ReorderBufferTXN size is low.
> Without that, we would need more complex logic to store inval messages
> per-transaction, which introduce a risk. So I agree with the current
> solution.
>
It is difficult to predict whether proprietary extensions rely on the
sizeof ReorderBufferTXN, but I can't think of a better fix (where we
add new members at the end of ReorderBufferTXN) for backbranches. I
think we should explicitly mention this in the commit message, and in
the worst case, we need to request extension owners (that rely on
sizeof(ReorderBufferTXN)) to rebuild their extension.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
