| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: EXPLAIN ANALYZE |
| Date: | 2006-12-11 18:26:57 |
| Message-ID: | 14512.1165861617@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah ... a protocol change is *painful*, especially if you really want
>> clients to behave in a significantly new way.
> A backward-incompatible protocol change is painful, sure, but ISTM we
> could implement what Greg describes as a straightforward extension to
> the V3 protocol. Then the backend could just avoid sending the query
> progress information to < V4 protocol clients.
You're dodging the point though. If you want the new message type to do
anything useful in V4 clients, you still have to define an API for
libpq, update psql, try to figure out what the heck JDBC and ODBC are
going to do with it, etc etc. All doable, but it's a lot more work than
just a quick hack in the backend.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ron Mayer | 2006-12-11 21:31:57 | Re: Load distributed checkpoint |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2006-12-11 18:26:40 | Re: EXPLAIN ANALYZE |