Re: Libpq PGRES_COPY_BOTH - version compatibility

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 17:35, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Given that, it seems that there is far more downside than upside to
> this particular change, and we shouldn't do it.  Accordingly, I'm
> going to mark the open item "raise protocol version number" closed.

+1.

>> 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.
>
> I don't think this would be a bad thing to do if we're fairly clear
> that it's correct and won't break anything, but I don't think it's
> worth delaying beta for, so I propose not to add it to the open items
> list unless someone else feels otherwise.

Perhaps this part should go on the TODO list then?

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/