Re: Let's drop V2 protocol

From: Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com
Subject: Re: Let's drop V2 protocol
Date: 2012-02-24 17:11:08
Message-ID: 20120224171108.GA19053@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 11:46:19AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> As for taking it out of libpq, I would vote against doing that as long
> as we have pg_dump support for pre-7.4 servers. Now, I think it would
> be entirely reasonable to kill pg_dump's support for pre-7.3 servers,
> because that would simplify life in numerous ways for pg_dump; but 7.4
> was not a big compatibility break for pg_dump so it seems a bit
> arbitrary to kill its support for 7.3 specifically.

So we need to maintain V2 protocol in libpq to specifically support 7.3?

What's so special about 7.3?

> As near as I can tell the argument here is basically that we don't want
> to try to fix unfixable bugs in the V2-protocol code. Well, yeah,
> they're unfixable ... why do you think we invented V3? But they are
> what they are, and as long as you don't run into those limitations the
> protocol does still work. There are plenty of features that require V3
> already, so I see no reason not to classify the row-processor stuff as
> one more.

Agreed. But still - having to reorg the never-used V2 code in parallel
to actual development in V3 code makes all changes in the area
unnecessary harder.

--
marko

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2012-02-24 17:17:46 Re: Let's drop V2 protocol
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2012-02-24 17:02:43 Re: Format of raw files