Re: Libpq PGRES_COPY_BOTH - version compatibility

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Libpq PGRES_COPY_BOTH - version compatibility
Date: 2011-03-28 22:56:58
Message-ID: 1069.1301353018@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On sn, 2011-03-27 at 00:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> but we haven't bumped the protocol version number since 7.4,
>> and so I have no faith that clients will behave sensibly

> So we will never change the minor protocol version, because we've never
> done it and don't know whether it works?

My feeling is we should leave it for a time when we have a protocol
change to make that's actually of interest to clients (and, therefore,
some benefit to them in return for any possible breakage). The case for
doing it to benefit only walsender/walreceiver seems vanishingly thin to
me, because in practice those are going to be quite useless if you don't
have the same PG version installed at both ends anyway.

Now if we had a track record showing that we could tweak the protocol
version without causing problems, it'd be fine with me to do it for this
usage. But we don't, and this particular case doesn't seem like the
place to start.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-03-28 23:07:49 Re: Libpq PGRES_COPY_BOTH - version compatibility
Previous Message hubert depesz lubaczewski 2011-03-28 22:51:11 Re: Problem with streaming replication, backups, and recovery (9.0.x)