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

Re: [INTERFACES] Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign

From: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, pgsql-interfaces(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [INTERFACES] Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign
Date: 2003-03-12 01:17:51
Message-ID: 20030311211526.H72192@hub.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-interfaces
On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Tom Lane wrote:

> One of the $64 questions that has to be answered is how much work we're
> willing to expend on backwards compatibility.  The path of least
> resistance would be to handle it the same way we've done protocol
> revisions in the past: the backend will be able to handle both old and
> new protocols (so it can talk to old clients) but libpq would be revised
> to speak only the new protocol (so new/recompiled clients couldn't talk
> to old backends).  We've gotten away with this approach in the past, but
> the last time was release 6.4.  I fully expect to hear more complaints
> now.

Personally ... as long as a v8.x client can talk to a v7.x backend, you
have my vote ... I'm more apt to upgrade my clients before my servers
anyway ...

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Marc G. FournierDate: 2003-03-12 01:19:56
Subject: Re: Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign
Previous:From: Sumaira AliDate: 2003-03-12 00:42:55
Subject: bitmask for lock types

pgsql-interfaces by date

Next:From: Marc G. FournierDate: 2003-03-12 01:19:56
Subject: Re: Roadmap for FE/BE protocol redesign
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2003-03-12 00:35:18
Subject: Re: Postgres Scaling

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