| 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 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2011-03-28 23:44:46 | Re: Another swing at JSON |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-03-28 22:56:58 | Re: Libpq PGRES_COPY_BOTH - version compatibility |