Re: Libpq PGRES_COPY_BOTH - version compatibility

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Libpq PGRES_COPY_BOTH - version compatibility
Date: 2011-03-27 08:02:13
Message-ID: AANLkTimFC=uYb92+wB+vNE=1Pdqg8mhgtZ_QgUMGjmBY@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 4:09 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 6:55 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>>> ISTM that the correct fix is to increment to protocol version number to
>>> 3.1 and send PGRES_COPY_OUT if the client requests version 3.0.  That's
>>> what the version numbers are for, no?
>>
>> In a way - yes. I assume we didn't do that because it's considered "internal".
>>
>> It still won't help in my situation though - I need to know what
>> version of the libpq headers I have in order to even be able to
>> *compile* the program. At runtime, I could check against the server
>> version, and get around it.
>
> This is listed on the open items list as "raise protocol version
> number", but the above discussion suggests both that this might be
> unnecessary and that it might not solve Magnus's problem anyway.
>
> What do we want to do here?

We add an option as to how the protocol behaves, with default as 3.0.
Older clients will not know about the new option and so will not
request it.

Magnus gets his new functionality, nothing breaks.

--
 Simon Riggs                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dimitri Fontaine 2011-03-27 10:11:09 Re: WIP: Allow SQL-language functions to reference parameters by parameter name
Previous Message 3dmashup 2011-03-27 05:51:06 Re: would hw acceleration help postgres (databases in general) ?