Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

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 23:07:49
Message-ID: 1240.1301353669@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
I wrote:
> 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.

And, btw, a moment's study of the protocol version checking code in
postmaster.c shows that bumping the minor version number to 3.1 *would*
break things: a client requesting 3.1 from a current postmaster would
get a failure.

Maybe we oughta change that logic --- it's not clear to me that there's
any meaningful difference between major and minor numbers given the
current postmaster behavior.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2011-03-28 23:44:46
Subject: Re: Another swing at JSON
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-03-28 22:56:58
Subject: Re: Libpq PGRES_COPY_BOTH - version compatibility

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group